f"*.f1!*r*' ■ 


^'■i- 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/criticismoffourtOOsand 


/h'^^r         ''T^ 


\AMay 


r, 


,    X  a^  (.//t*^  <f    r   I  C^-\  Y*  ' 


Pu 


±  LtM 


■76 


THE   CRITICISM 
or 

THE   FOURTH   GOSPEL 


HENRY  FROWDE,  M.A. 

PUBLISHER  TO  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OXFORD 

LONDON,   EDINBURGH 

AND  TORONTO 


THE  CRITICISM 

OF 

THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

EIGHT  LECTURES  ON  THE  MORSE 
FOUNDATION,  DELIVERED  IN  THE 
UNION  SEMINARY,  NEW  YORK 
IN    OCTOBER   AND    NOVEMBER,    1904 


BY 


WILLIAM  SANDAY,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Litt.D. 

LADY  MARGARET  PROFESSOR,  AND  CANON  OF  CHRIST  CHURCH,   OXFORD 

HON.  FELLOW  OF  EXETER  COLLEGE  ;    FELLOW  OF  THE  BRITISH  ACADEMY 

CHAPLAIN  IN  ORDINARY  TO  THE  KING 


OXFORD 
AT   THE  CLARENDON  PRESS 

1905 


OXFORD 
PRINTED   AT  THE  CLARENDON   PRESS 

BV   HORACE   HART,   M.A. 
TKINTEB   TO  THE  UNIVERSITY 


TO  MY   AMERICAN   FRIENDS 


PREFACE 

These  lectures  were  delivered  in  accordance  with 
the  terms  of  the  Morse  foundation  in  the  Union  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  New  York,  between  October  1 2 
and  November  4,  1904;  and  they  were  afterwards 
repeated,  with  some  changes,  in  Oxford.  I  have 
tried  to  improve  their  form  both  while  they  were 
being  delivered  and  since.  But  I  have  been  content 
to  state  the  case  for  the  most  part  broadly  and  con- 
structively, and  have  not  (as  I  had  at  one  time 
intended)  burdened  the  pages  with  notes  and  detailed 
discussions. 

I  am  conscious  of  inadequate  treatment  throughout, 
but  especially  perhaps  in  Lecture  VII.  There  has 
been  a  movement  of  thought  going  on  ever  since 
the  lectures  were  begun ;  and,  if  I  am  not  mistaken, 
the  burning  point  of  the  whole  controversy  has  come 
to  rest  more  and  more  upon  the  question  discussed 
in  this  lecture.  But  on  neither  side  has  the  real  issue 
been  pressed  home  with  any  thoroughness.  Critical 
writers  are  in  the  habit  of  assuming  with  very  little 
proof  that  the  theology  of  St.  John  is  simply  a  de- 
velopment of  that  of  St.  Paul,  and  that  the  theology 
of  St.  Paul  was  from  one  end  to  the  other  the 
Apostle's  own  creation.  I  cannot  think  that  this  is 
a  true  representation  of  the  facts  ;  it  seems  to  me 
to  ignore  far  too  much  the  Mother  Church  and  that 
which   <rave  its  life  to  the  Mother  Church.     At  the 


viii  Preface 

same  time  I  am  quite  aware  that  what  I  have  given 
is  rather  a  sketch  for  a  possible  answer  to  this  ques- 
tion, than  a  really  satisfactory  discussion  of  it.  There 
are  not  wanting  signs  that  a  fuller  examination  of 
the  relations  between  the  teaching  of  Christ  on  the 
one  hand  and  St.  Paul  and  St.  John  on  the  other  is  the 
next  great  debate  that  lies  before  us.  In  this  debate 
the  question  of  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel  will  be  but  an  episode. 

It  is  a  matter  of  regret  to  me  that  the  subject  of 
these  lectures  should  have  been  so  predominantly  con- 
troversial. I  cannot  help  feeling  the  deep  cleft  which 
divides  me  from  many  of  the  writers  whose  views 
I  have  discussed — a  cleft  that  extends  to  matters  more 
fundamental  still  than  the  criticism  of  the  Gospel. 
I  find  it  in  some  ways  a  relief  to  think  of  the  division 
between  us  as  greater  even  than  it  is.  Where  there 
is  frank  and  open  hostility,  the  approaches  that  are 
made  by  the  one  side  to  the  other  are  more  highly 
valued.  And  from  this  point  of  view  there  is  much 
in  the  writings  of  those  of  whom  I  am  obliged  to 
think  as  opponents  that  greatly  appeals  to  me.  As 
typical  of  this  I  may  mention  the  pamphlet  by 
Freiherr  von  Soden  entitled  Die  wichtigsten  Fragen 
im  Leben  Jesu.  I  have  referred  to  this  pamphlet  in 
a  note  on  p.  129,  in  terms  that  are  not  those  of 
praise  ;  and  it  is  true  that  the  critical  portion  of  the 
pamphlet,  especially  so  far  as  it  deals  with  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  seems  to  me  very  defective.     I   also  cannot 


Preface  ix 

disguise  from  myself  that  the  author  explicitly  denies 
what  I  should  most  wish  that  he  affirmed  (op.  cit., 
p.  92).  But,  when  I  have  said  this,  it  is  only  just 
to  add  that  I  have  read  the  concluding  sections  of 
his  essay  with  warm  respect  and  admiration.  And 
what  is  true  of  this  essay  is  true  of  much  beside. 

I  console  myself  by  thinking  that  German  criticism, 
with  which  I  have  had  to  break  a  lance  more  often 
than  with  any  other,  has  a  wonderful  faculty  for  cor- 
recting itself.  Only  in  the  last  few  years  we  have 
had,  first  the  discussions  started  by  Wellhausen  about 
the  title  Son  of  Man,  and  then  those  set  on  foot  by 
Wrede  in  his  book  Das  Messiasgeheimnis  in  den  Evan- 
gelien,  and  in  each  case  criticism  seems  to  be  working 
its  way  through  to  a  view  that  is  really  right  and 
reasonable.  In  like  manner  the  extravagant  estimate 
of  the  apocalyptic  element  in  the  Gospels  which  has 
been  in  vogue  in  recent  years  seems  to  be  reducing 
itself  to  sounder  dimensions.  In  each  case  there  is 
error ;  but  in  each  case  the  error  is  corrected,  and 
something  is  learnt  and  gained  by  the  way.  May 
we  not  hope  that  on  this  question  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  and  the  still  more  vital  matters  with  which 
it  is  bound  up,  by  degrees  the  tension  may  be  re- 
laxed, and  there  may  be  the  same  experience  of 
permanent  gain  ?  Already  one  may  see  great  poten- 
tialities of  good  in  much  that  as  it  at  present  stands 
may  well  give  cause  for  concern. 

One  common  form  of  criticism  that  may  be  directed 


X  Preface 

against  this  book  I  confess  that  I  should  rather 
deprecate.  Even  my  friend  Dr.  Cheyne,  whose 
sympathies  are  so  large,  allows  himself  to  write : 
*  Apologetic  considerations  are  brought  in  to  limit 
our  freedom.  The  Fourth  Gospel  must  be  the  work 
of  the  Apostle  John,  and  must  be  in  the  main  his- 
torical, because  the  inherited  orthodoxy  requires  it ' 
{Bible  Problems,  p.  40  f.).  Does  he  really  think  that 
this  is  our  only  reason  for  holding  those  paradoxical 
positions  ?  Or  rather,  I  would  put  my  question  in 
another  way ;  Does  he  really  think  that  '  the  inherited 
orthodoxy'  is  nothing  better  than  a  taskmaster  that 
stands  over  us  with  a  whip,  to  keep  us  from  straying  ? 
Is  that  his  view  of  the  divine  meaning  in  the  history 
and  development  of  nineteen  centuries  ?  I  have  had 
occasion  incidentally  to  define  my  attitude  on  this 
subject,  and  I  may  perhaps  refer  to  the  pages  on 
which  I  have  done  so  (pp.  3-5  ;  comp.  pp.  233-235  ; 
262  f.).  I  hope  that  this  attitude  is  at  least  as 
consistent  with  an  earnest  pursuit  of  truth  as  that 
which  appears  to  assume  that  orthodox  or  traditional 
opinions  are  always  wrong. 

Again,  I  am  not  conscious  of  that  '  paralysing  dread 
of  new  facts  '  of  which  my  friend  speaks.  It  may  be 
true  that  new  theories  perhaps,  rather  than  new  facts, 
have  a  greater  attraction  for  some  of  us  than  for 
others.  But,  as  far  as  I  am  concerned,  if  I  have 
been  silent  in  public  on  some  of  the  no  doubt  im- 
portant questions  raised,  the  cause  has  been  chiefly 


Preface  xi 

want  of  time.  Life  is  very  short,  and  very  crowded, 
and  we  are  not  all  rapid  workers,  or  gifted  with  the 
power  of  facing  in  many  directions  at  once.  And 
yet  I  have  tried  to  keep  pace  with  the  progress  of 
thought ;  the  problems  which  Dr.  Cheyne  propounds 
are  not  unfamiliar  to  me;  and  I  am  not  without  more 
or  less  deliberate  views  about  them.  Dr.  Cheyne's 
book  is  enough  to  convince  me  that  the  problems 
are  really  urgent ;  and  I  shall  do  my  best  to  say 
what  I  have  to  say  upon  them  as  soon  as  I  can. 

Perhaps  it  should  be  explained  that  the  enumera- 
tion of  books  and  writers  does  not  profess  to  be 
exhaustive.  In  the  main  I  have  confined  myself 
to  the  more  recent,  and  to  what  may  be  called 
*  living '  literature.  Some  few  things  may  have 
dropped  out  because  they  did  not  happen  to  fall 
in  with  the  method  of  treatment  adopted.  Of  these 
the  various  writings  of  Dr.  Edwin  A.  Abbott  are  the 
most  important  that  I  can  remember.  To  the  older 
works  mentioned  on  pp.  12-15  there  should  have 
been  added  Archdeacon  Watkins'  Bampton  Lectures 
for  1890  as  a  summary  of  earlier  criticism.  The 
absence  of  reference  to  the  elaborate  work  of  Dr.  J  oh. 
Kreyenbiihl  {jDas  Evangelium  der  Wahrheit,  vol.  i, 
1900;  vol.  ii,  1905)  is  due  in  part  to  the  accidental 
loss  of  my  copy  of  the  first  volume.  But  it  would 
be  wrong  to  suggest  that  I  should  have  had  patience 
enough  to  discover  what  there  is  of  sanity  in  its 
learned  but  fantastic  pages. 


xii  Preface 

It  only  remains  for  me  to  express  my  heartfelt 
thanks  to  those  who  so  kindly  invited  me  to  deliver 
these  lectures,  and  to  those  who  gave  me  such 
generous  and  considerate  hospitality,  while  they  were 
being  delivered.  My  visit  to  America  was  deeply 
interesting  to  me.  I  returned  home,  not  only  with 
the  feeling  that  I  had  made  new  and  valued  friends, 
but  also  with  a  greatly  strengthened  hope  and  desire 
that  American  and  English  workers  may  long  be 
found  side  by  side — not  as  though  either  of  them 
had  already  obtained,  or  were  already  made  perfect, 
but  pressing  on,  if  so  be  that  they  may  apprehend  that 
for  which  also  they  were  apprehended  by  Christ  Jesus. 

I  must  also  add  a  word  of  very  sincere  thanks  to 
my  friends  Dr.  Lock,  who  read  the  whole,  and  Mr. 
LI.  J.  M.  Bebb,  who  read  a  part  of  the  proofs  of 
these  lectures,  and  to  whose  kindness  and  care  I  owe 
it  that  they  are  not  more  faulty  than  they  are. 

Oxford.    Easter,  1905. 


CONTENTS 

LECTURE   I 

SURVEY  OF  RECENT  LITERATURE 


PAGE 

Situation  in  November,  1903  .... 

I 

I.  Conservative  Opinion          .... 

8 

2.  Mediating  Theories 

16 

3.  Partition  Theories 

20 

4.  Uncompromising  Rejection 

.       25 

5.  Recent  Reaction 

.       32 

LECTURE    II 

CRITICAL   METHODS.      THE   OLDEST   SOLUTION   OF  THE 
PROBLEM  OF  THE   FOURTH   GOSPEL 

I.     i.  Defects  in  the  Methods  of  current  Criticism         .         .  42 

ii.  Instances  in  which  Criticism  has  corrected  itself  .         .  51 
iii.  Examples  of  Mistaken    Method   as   applied   to  the 

Fourth  Gospel 60 

II.  The  Oldest  Solution  of  the  Problem  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  66 


LECTURE   III 

THE  STANDPOINT  OF  THE   AUTHOR 

1.  The  Gospel  is  put  forward  as  the  Work  of  an  Eye-witness . 
i.  Passages  which  make  a  direct  claim    .         .         .        . 
ii.  Passages  in  which  the  impression  conveyed  is  indirect 
II.  The  Identity  of  the  Evangelist 


74 

75 
82 

97 


XIV 


Contents 


LECTURE   IV 

THE  PRAGMATISM   OF  THE  GOSPEL 


PAGE 

Different  Kinds  of  Precision  in  Detail     . 

.     109 

i.  Pilgrimages 

.     117 

ii.  Ceremonies 

.     119 

iii.  The  Temple 

.     122 

iv.  Sects  and  Parties 

•     123 

V.  Jewish  Ideas  and  Dialectic  . 

.     128 

vi.  The  Messianic  Expectation 

.         .     136 

LECTURE  V 

THE  CHARACTER  OF  THE  NARRATIVE     .   142 

I.  Alleged  Discrepancies  with  the  Synoptic  Narrative  .         .     144 
i.  The  Scene  of  the  Ministry         .         .         .         .         -144 

ii.  The  Duration  of  the  Ministry 148 

iii.  The  Cleansing  of  the  Temple   .         .         .         .         -149 

iv.  The  Date  of  the  Last  Supper  and  of  the  Crucifixion  .     150 

II.  The  alleged  Want  of  Development  in  St.  John's  Narrative     155 

i.  Anticipated  Confessions    .         .         .         .         .         -157 

ii.  The  Use  of  the  Word  '  Believe '         .         .         .         .161 

iii.  Traces  of  Development  in  the  Fourth  Gospel     .         .     162 

III.  The  Nature  of  the  Discourses 165 

IV.  The  Presentation  of  the  Supernatural      .         .         .         .169 

i.  The  Treatment  of  Miracle  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  .  169 
ii.  Method  of  approaching  the  Question  of  Miracle  .  172 
iii.  The  Gospel  embodies  ocular  Testimony  .  .  .179 
iv.  A  Patristic  Parallel 182 


Contents 


XV 


LECTURE  VI 


THE   DOCTRINE  OF   THE   LOGOS,   AND   ITS    INFLUENCE 


ON   THE  GOSPEL 

I.  Affinities  of  the  Logos  Doctrine 

1.  Partial  Parallels  in  O.T.  and  Judaism 

2.  The  Evangelist  not  a  Philosopher 

3.  Points  of  Agreement  with  Philo 

4.  Absence  of  Philonian  Catchwords 

5.  More  Fundamental  Differences 

6.  Possible  Avenues  of  Connexion 

II.  Relation  of  the  Prologue  to  the  rest  of  the  Gospel 

1.  View  of  Harnack      ..... 

2.  View  of  Grill    ...... 

3.  View  of  Loisy  ...... 


PAGE 

185 

186 
188 
189 
191 

192 

197 

200 
200 
201 
202 


LECTURE  VII 

THE  CHRISTOLOGY  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

1.  The  Gospel  not  a  Biography 205 

2.  The    Christology   of   St.    John    compared    with    that    of 

St.  Paul  and  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews         .         .     208 

3.  Comparison  with  the  Synoptic  Gospels        .         .         .         .216 

4.  Interpretation   of  these   Relations   between   the   Synoptic 

Gospels,    St.    Paul    and    St.    John  :    Alternative    Con- 
structions         226 

Two  Preliminary  Remarks 228 

5.  Objections  to  the  Critical  Theory 229 

6.  Larger  Objections 233 


XVI 


Contents 


LECTURE  VIII 

THE  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

I,  Summary  of  the  Internal  Evidence 

II.  The  External  Evidence 

1.  The  Position  at  the  end  of  the  Second  Century 

2.  Earlier  Evidence      ..... 
III.  Unsolved  Problems 

1.  The  Relation  of  the  Gospel  to  the  Apocalypse 

2.  The  Date  of  Papias 

3.  The  Death  of  the  Apostle  John 

4.  The  Son  of  Zebedee  and  the  Beloved  Disciple 

5.  John  of  Ephesus  and  his  Gospel 
Epilogue  on  the  Principles  of  Criticism  . 

Index  


PAGE 

236 
238 
238 
240 
248 
248 
251 
251 
252 

253 

257 

265 


LECTURE    I 

SURVEY    OF    RECENT    LITERATURE 

The  Situation  in  November^   1903. 

The  subject  of  these  lectures  illustrates  in  a  striking 
way  the  fluctuations  and  vicissitudes  of  critical  opinion 
as  presented  before  the  public.  The  facts  remain  the 
same,  and  the  balance  of  essential  truth  and  error  in 
regard  to  them  also  remains  the  same  ;  but  the  balance 
of  published  opinion  is  a  different  matter,  and  in  regard 
to  this  the  changes  are  often  very  marked  and  very 
rapid. 

In  November  last  (1903),  when  I  definitely  accepted 
the  invitation  so  kindly  given  me  by  your  President, 
and  definitely  proposed  the  subject  on  which  I  am 
about  to  speak,  the  criticism  of  the  Fourth  Gospel 
had  reached  a  point  which,  in  my  opinion,  was  further 
removed  from  truth  and  reality  than  at  any  period 
within  my  recollection.  There  had  followed  one 
another  in  quick  succession  four  books — or  what  were 
practically  books — three  at  least  of  which  were  of 
conspicuous  ability,  and  yet  all  as  it  seemed  to  me 
seriously  wrong  both  in  their  conclusions  and  in  their 
methods.  To  the  year  1901  belong  the  third  and 
fourth  editions,  published  together,  of  the  justly  praised 
and  largely  circulated  Intyoduction  to  the  New  Testa- 
vient  of  Professor  Julicher  of  Marburg  (now  translated 
into  English  by  the  accomplished  daughter  of  Mrs. 
Humphry  Ward),  the  second  volume  of  Encyclopaedia 


2  /.    Survey  of  Recent  Literature 

Biblica,  containing  a  massive  article  on  '  John,  Son 
of  Zebedee,'  by  Professor  P.  W.  Schmiedel  of  Zurich, 
and  a  monograph  on  the  Fourth  Gospel  by  M.  Jean 
R^ville  of  Paris  \  To  these  was  added  in  the  autumn 
of  last  year  a  complete  commentary  on  the  Gospel  by 
the  Abbe  Loisy,  whose  more  popular  writings  were 
at  the  time  attracting  so  much  attention.  A  profound 
dissent  from  the  conclusion  arrived  at  in  these  works 
was  one  of  my  main  reasons  in  offering  to  discuss  the 
subject  before  you.  The  feeling  was  strong  within 
me  that  in  this  portion  of  the  critical  field — and  I  do 
not  know  any  other  so  vital — the  time  was  one  of 
trouble  and  rebuke  ;  that  there  was  a  call  to  me  to 
speak  ;  and  that,  however  inadequate  the  response 
to  the  call  might  be,  some  response  ought  to  be 
attempted. 

These  were  the  motives  present  to  my  mind  in  the 
month  of  November  when  I  chose  my  subject.  But 
by  the  beginning  of  the  year  {1904)  the  position  of 
things  by  which  they  had  been  prompted  was  very 
largely  changed.  The  urgency  was  no  longer  nearly 
so  great.  Two  books  had  appeared,  both  in  the 
English  tongue,  which  did  better  than  I  could  hope 
to  do  the  very  thing  that  I  desired — one  more  limited, 
the  other  more  extended  in  its  scope,  but  both 
maintainino;  what  I  believe  to  be  the  rioht  cause  in 
what   I    believe  to  be   the  right  way.     These  books 

^  It  is  this  last  work  that  I  consider  an  exception  to  the  high 
standard  of  abihty  in  the  group  of  which  I  am  speaking.  It  is 
absolutely  one-sided.  I  do  not  doubt  the  writer's  sincerity,  but  he 
is  blissfully  unconscious  that  there  is  another  side  to  the  argument. 


The  Situation  in  November,  1903  3 

were  The  Gospels  as  Historical  Documents,  Part  I, 
by  Professor  V.  H.  Stanton  of  Cambridge,  and 
The  Character  and  Anther  ship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel 
by  Dr.  James  Drummond,  Principal  of  Manchester 
College.  I  should  be  well  content  to  rest  the  case, 
as  I  should  wish  it  to  be  stated,  on  these  two  books, 
especially  the  second.  But  by  the  time  when  they 
appeared  I  was  already  committed  to  my  task.  As 
I  have  said,  one  of  them  is  limited  in  its  scope ;  and 
the  other — admirable  as  it  is,  and  heartily  as  I  agree 
with  its  principles  as  well  as  with  most  of  its  details — 
is  perhaps  not  quite  so  complete  on  all  points  as  it  is 
on  some ;  so  that  there  may  still  be  room  for  such 
a  brief  course  of  lectures  as  you  ask  of  me,  partly  to 
reinforce  points  already  made,  and  partly,  it  may  be, 
in  some  small  degree  to  supplement  them. 

What  I  have  been  saying  amounts  to  a  confession 
that  my  purpose  is  apologetic.  I  propose  to  defend 
the  traditional  view,  or  (as  an  alternative)  something 
so  near  to  the  traditional  view  that  it  will  count  as 
the  same  thing.  It  is  better  to  be  clear  on  this  point  at 
starting.  And  yet  I  know  that  there  are  many  minds — 
and  those  just  the  minds  to  which  I  should  most  like 
to  appeal — to  which  this  will  seem  to  be  a  real  drawback. 
There  is  an  impression  abroad — a  very  natural  impres- 
sion— that  '  apologetic '  is  opposed  to  '  scientific' 

In  regard  to  this  there  are  just  one  or  two  things 
that  I  would  ask  leave  to  say. 

(i)  We  are  all  really  apologists,  in  the  sense  that 
for  all  of  us  some  conclusions   are    more  acceptable 

B  2 


4  /.   Survey  of  Recent  Literature 

than  others.  No  one  undertakes  to  write  on  any 
subject  with  his  mind  in  the  state  of  a  sheet  of  white 
paper.  We  all  start  with  a  number  of  general  prin- 
ciples and  general  beliefs,  conscious  or  unconscious, 
fixed  or  provisional.  We  all  naturally  give  a  prefer- 
ence to  that  which  harmonizes  best  with  these  beliefs, 
though  all  the  time  a  process  of  adjustment  may  be 
going  on,  by  which  we  assimilate  larger  conclusions  to 
smaller  as  well  as  smaller  to  larger. 

(2)  Even  in  the  strictest  science  it  must  not  be 
supposed  that  the  evidence  will  always  point  the  same 
way.  The  prima  facie  conclusion  will  not  always  be 
necessarily  the  right  one.  It  cannot  be,  because  it 
is  very  possible  that  it  may  conflict  with  some  other 
conclusion  that  is  already  well  established.  A  balance 
has  to  be  struck,  and  some  adjustment  has  to  be 
attempted. 

(3)  If  I  defend  a  traditional  statement  as  to  a  plain 
matter  of  fact,  I  am  the  more  ready  to  do  so  because 
I  have  found — or  seemed  to  myself  to  find — as 
a  matter  of  experience,  that  such  statements  are  far 
more  often,  in  the  main,  right  than  wrong.  It  is 
a  satisfaction  to  me  to  think  that  in  this  experience, 
so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  first  two  centuries  of  Christian 
history,  I  have  the  distinguished  support  of  Professor 
Harnack,  who  has  expressed  a  deliberate  opinion  to 
this  effect,  though  he  certainly  did  not  start  with  any 
prejudice  in  favour  of  tradition.  Of  course  one  sits 
loosely  to  a  generalization  like  this.  It  only  means 
that  the  burden  of  proof  lies  with  those  who  reject 
such  a  statement  rather  than  with  those  who  accept  it. 


The  Situation  in  November,  1903  5 

(4)  I  cannot  but  believe  that  there  is  a  real  pre- 
sumption that  the  Christian  failh,  which  has  played  so 
vast  a  part  in  what  appear  to  be  the  designs  of  the 
Power  that  rules  the  world,  is  not  based  upon  a  series 
of  deceptions.  I  consider  that,  on  any  of  the  large 
questions,  that  view  is  preferable  which  does  not 
involve  an  abrupt  break  with  the  past.  It  is  very 
likely  that  there  may  be  involved  some  modification 
or  restatement,  but  not  complete  denial  or  reversal. 

To  say  this  is  something  more  than  the  instinct  of 

continuity — something  more  than  the  instinct  expressed 

in  such  words  as — 

*  I  could  wish  my  days  to  be 
Bound  each  to  each  by  natural  piety.' 

It  is  the  settled  belief  that  there  is  a  Providence  that 
shapes  our  ends,  and  that  this  Providence  never  has 
wholly  to  undo  its  own  work,  but  that  there  is  a  con- 
tinuous purpose  running  through  the  ages. 

That  is  the  sense — and  I  do  not  think  more  than 
that — in  which  I  plead  guilty  to  being  an  apologist. 
I  hope  there  is  such  a  thing  as  '  scientific  apology '  or 
*  apologetic  science,'  and  that  this  is  entitled  to  fair 
consideration  along  with  other  kinds  of  science.  I 
would  not  for  a  moment  ask  that  anything  I  may- 
urge  should  be  judged  otherwise  than  strictly  on  its 
merits. 

I  began  by  saying  that  the  nearer  past,  the  last 
three  or  four  years,  has  been  distinguished  by  the 
successive  appearance  of  a  number  of  prominent  books 
on  the  criticism  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  which  have  been 


6  /.    Survey  of  Recent  Literature 

all  on  the  negative  side.  Those  I  mentioned  are 
not  only  negative,  but  they  have  taken  the  more 
extreme  form  of  negation.  Not  content  with  denying 
that  the  author  of  the  Gospel  was  the  Apostle  St.  John, 
they  insist  at  once  that  the  true  author  is  entirely 
unknown,  and  that  whoever  he  was  he  stood  in  no 
direct  relation  to  the  Apostle.  It  has  been  the  special 
characteristic  of  the  last  few  years,  as  compared  with  the 
preceding  period,  that  this  more  extreme  position  has 
been  held  by  writers  of  note  and  influence.  If  we  take 
the  period  from  1889  to  1900 — or  even  if  we  go  further 
back,  say,  from  1870  to  1900,  the  dominant  tendency 
had  been  different.  Opinion  had  seemed  to  gravitate 
more  and  more  towards  a  sort  of  middle  position,  in 
which  the  two  sides  in  the  debate  could  almost  reach 
hands  to  each  other.  There  was  a  distinct  recognition 
on  the  critical  side  of  an  element  in  the  Gospel  of 
genuine  and  authentic  history.  And,  on  the  other 
hand,  there  was  an  equally  clear  recognition  among 
conservative  writers  that  the  discourses  of  our  Lord 
in  particular  were  reported  with  a  certain  amount  of 
freedom,  not  as  they  had  been  actually  spoken  but  as 
they  came  back  to  the  memory  of  the  Apostle  after 
a  considerable  lapse  of  time.  While  the  critics  could 
not  bring  themselves  to  accept  the  composition  of  the 
Gospel  by  the  son  of  Zebedee  himself,  they  seemed 
increasingly  disposed  to  admit  that  it  might  be  the 
work  of  a  near  disciple  of  the  Apostle,  such  as  the 
supposed  second  John,  commonly  known  as  'the 
Presbyter.' 

If  this  was  the  state  of  things  six  or  seven  years 


The  Situation  in  November,   1903  7 

ago,  and  if  this  description  might  be  given  of  the 
general  tendency  of  research  in  the  decade  or  two 
preceding,  the  same  can  be  said  no  longer.  The 
threads  that  seemed  to  be  drawing  together  have 
again  sprung  asunder.  The  sharp  antitheses,  that 
seemed  in  the  way  to  be  softened  down  and  har- 
monized, have  asserted  themselves  again  in  all  their 
old  abruptness.  The  alternatives  are  once  more  not 
so  much  between  stricter  and  less  strict  history  as 
between  history  and  downright  fiction,  not  so  much 
between  the  Apostle  and  a  disciple  or  younger  con- 
temporary of  the  Apostle  as  between  a  member  of  the 
Apostolic  generation  and  one  who  was  in  no  connexion 
with  it. 

I  am  speaking  of  the  more  pronounced  opinions  on 
either  side.  Whereas  seven  or  eight  or  fifteen  or 
twenty  years  ago  the  most  prominent  scholars  were 
working  towards  conciliation,  at  the  present  time,  and 
in  the  near  past,  the  most  strongly  expressed  opinions 
have  been  the  most  extreme.  The  old  authorities, 
happily  for  the  most  part,  still  remain  upon  the  scene, 
and  they  have  not  withdrawn  the  views  which  they 
had  expressed  ;  but  other,  younger  writers  have  come 
to  the  front,  and  they  have  not  shown  the  same  dis- 
position for  compromise.  They  know  their  own  minds, 
and  they  are  ready  enough  to  proclaim  them  without 
hesitation  and  without  reserve. 

The  consequence  is  that  the  situation,  as  we  look 
out  upon  it,  presents  more  variety  than  it  did.  There 
are  many  shades  of  opinion,  some  of  them  strongly 
opposed  to   each  other.     It  is  no  longer  possible  to 


8  /.    Survey  of  Recent  Literature 

strike  an  average,  or  to  speak  of  a  general  tendency. 
The  only  thing  to  be  done  is  for  each  of  us  to  state 
his  view  of  the  case  as  he  sees  it,  and  to  appeal  to  the 
public,  to  the  jury  of  plain  men,  and  to  the  rising 
generation,  to  decide  between  the  competing  theories. 

I.  Conservative  Opinion. 

It  must  not  be  thought  that  conservative  scholars 
have  shown   any   weakening   of  confidence    in    their 
cause.     Quite  the  contrary.     The  latest  period,  which 
has  seen  so  much  recrudescence   of  opposition,  has 
also  seen  not  only  the  old  positions  maintained   by 
those  who  had  maintained  them  before,  but  an  impor- 
tant accession  to  the  literature  on  the  Fourth  Gospel — 
from  the  hand  of  a  veteran  indeed,  but  a  veteran  who 
had   not   before   treated   the    subject   quite    directly. 
I  refer  to  Zahn's  monumental  Introduction  to  the  New 
Testament,  2  vols.,  published  in  1899,  with  which  may 
be  taken  vol.  vi  of  the  same  writer's  Forschungen  2. 
Gesch.  d.   7ieutest.  Kanons   published   in    1900.     It  is 
no  disparagement  to   other   workers    in   the  field  of 
Early  Christian  Literature  to  say  that  Dr.   Zahn  is 
the  most  learned  of  them  all.     We  could  indeed  count 
upon   our  fingers   several  who  know  all    that   really 
needs   to  be  known  ;   but  Dr.    Zahn   has   a  singular 
command  of  the  whole  of  this  material  in  its  remotest 
recesses.     He  keeps  a  keen  eye  not  only  on  theolo- 
gical literature  proper,  but  on  everything  that  appears 
in  the  world  of  scholarship  that  might  have  any  bear- 
ing upon  the  questions   at  issue.     An   indefatigable 
industry  he  shares  with  more  than  one  of  his   col- 


Conservative  Opinion  9 

leagues ;  but  he  is  surpassed  by  none  in  the  vigour 
and  energy  of  mind  with  which  he  works  up  his 
knowledge. 

And  yet,  with  all  his  masterly  erudition,  and  impos- 
ing as  is  the  monument  which  he  has  erected  of  it, 
I  am  afraid  that  I  should  have  to  call  it  in  some  ways 
a  rather  isolated  monument.  There  is  something  in 
Dr.  Zahn's  work  and  in  his  position  that  is  rather 
solitary.  He  has  indeed  hisfidics  Achates  in  Professor 
Haussleiter  of  Greifswald,  and  I  do  not  doubt  that 
his  influence  is  widely  felt  among  theologians  of  the 
Right.  It  is  an  encouragement  to  all  who  are  like- 
minded  to  know  that  this  strong  tower  of  learning 
and  character  is  with  them.  But  it  is  hardly  to  be 
expected  that  Dr.  Zahn's  writings,  especially  his 
greater  writings,  should  ever  be  popular.  Those 
closely  packed  pages,  with  long  unbroken  paragraphs 
and  few  helps  to  the  eye  and  to  readiness  of  appre- 
hension, are  a  severe  exercise  for  the  most  determined 
student :  to  any  one  else  they  must  be  forbidding. 
And  when  such  a  student  has  made  his  way  into  them, 
he  is  apt  to  find  in  them  every  quality  but  one.  The 
views  expressed  on  all  points,  larger  and  smaller, 
testify  unfailingly  to  the  powers  of  mind  that  lie 
behind  them,  but  the  one  thing  that  they  do  often 
fail  to  do  is  to  convince.  There  has  fallen  upon  the 
shoulders  of  Dr.  Zahn  too  much  of  the  mantle  of  von 
Hofmann  :  if  he  were  a  little  less  original,  he  would 
carry  the  reader  with  him  more. 

Another  veteran  scholar,  who  has  continued  his 
laborious  and  unresting  work  upon  the  Fourth  Gospel 


10  /.   Survey  of  Recent  Literature 

during  this  period,  Dr.  Bernhard  Weiss  ^,  suffers  less 
from  this  cause.  Not  that  the  writings  of  Dr.  Weiss 
are  much  easier  (they  are  a  little  easier)  or  more 
attractive  in  outward  form.  But  one  has  a  feeling 
that  the  Berlin  Professor  is  more  in  the  main  stream — ■ 
that  he  is  more  in  touch  with  other  opinion  on  the 
right  hand  and  on  the  left.  For  this  reason  one  finds 
him,  on  the  whole,  more  helpful.  Every  question,  as 
it  arises,  is  thoughtfully  weighed,  and  a  strong  judge- 
ment is  brought  to  bear  upon  it.  Each  edition  of 
Dr.  Weiss'  books  is  conscientiously  revised  and 
brought,  so  far  as  can  be  reasonably  expected,  up  to 
date.  This  untiring  worker,  as  he  enters  upon  the 
decline  of  a  long  life,  has  the  satisfaction  of  looking 
back  upon  a  series  of  volumes,  always  sound  and 
always  sober,  which  have  contributed  as  much  as  any 
in  this  generation  to  train  up  in  good  and  wholesome 
ways  those  who  are  to  follow.  Dr.  Weiss'  work 
upon  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  distinguished  at  once  by 
his  steady  maintenance  of  the  Apostolic  authorship 
and  by  his  steady  insistence  on  the  necessity  of  allow- 
ing for  a  certain  freedom  of  handling.  This  freedom 
in  the  treatment,  more  particularly  of  the  discourses, 
Dr.  Weiss  was  practically  the  first  writer  to  assert  on 
the  conservative  side.  He  has  sometimes  stated  it  in 
a  way  that  I  cannot  but  think  rather  exaggerated. 

Along  with  Bernhard  Weiss  it  is  natural  to  name 
Dr.  Willibald  Beyschlag,  of  whose  dignified  conduct 
of  the  proceedings  at  the  Halle  Tercentenary  reports 

*  Einleitung  in  d.  N.  T.,  3rd  ed.,  1897  ;  Das  Johannes-Evan-', 
gelium,  9th  ed.  (4th  of  those  undertaken  by  Dr.  Weiss),  1892. 


Conservative  Opinion  ii 

reached  us  in  England,  followed — as  it  seemed,  too 
soon — by  the  news  of  his  death  on  Nov.  25,  1900. 
Beyschlag  was  a  good  average  representative  of  the 
liberal  wing  of  the  defenders  of  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
who  also  combine  its  data  with  those  of  the  Synoptics 
in  reconstructing  the  Life  of  our  Lord.  His  style 
has  more  rhetorical  ease  and  flow  than  that  of  Weiss, 
and  he  states  his  views  with  confidence  and  vigour  ; 
but  one  feels  that  in  his  hands  problems  are  apt  to 
become  less  difficult  than  they  really  are.  For  a 
reasonable  middle  position,  a  compromise  between 
extremes  on  both  sides,  we  may  go  to  Beyschlag  as 
well  as  to  any  one ;  but  it  may  be  doubted  whether 
he  really  sounds  the  depths  of  the  Gospel  \ 

In  this  respect  writers  like  Luthardt  (died  Sept.  21, 
1902)  and  Godet  (died  Oct.  29,  1900),  who  are  nearer 
to  the  old-fashioned  orthodoxy,  are  more  satisfactory. 
Of  these  writers  we  have  fairly  recent  editions : 
Luthardt's  Kurzgefasster  Kommejitar  came  out  in 
a  second  edition  in  1894,  and  a  posthumous  edition 
of  Godet's  elaborate  and  weighty  work  began  to 
appear  in  1902.  With  such  books  as  these  we  may 
group  the  reprint  of  the  commentary  by  Drs.  Milligan 
and  Moulton  (Edinburgh,  n.  d.)  and  the  two  com- 
mentaries, in  The  Expositor  s  Bible  (189 1-2)  and  in 
The  Expositor  s  Greek  Testament,  1897,  ^Y  Dr.  Marcus 
Dods. 

^  For  Beyschlag's  treatment  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  see  Ziir  johan- 
neischen  Frage,  reprinted  from  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken  (Gotha, 
1876);  Neutest.  Theologie  (Halle  a.  S.,  1891),  i.  212-19;  Leben  Jesn 
(3rd  ed.,  Halle,  1893). 


12  /.   Survey  of  Recent  Literature 

In  the  same  connexion  may  also  be  mentioned 
a  little  group  of  French  writings,  headed  by  Six 
Lefons  sur  les  ^vangiles  (Paris,  1897),  by  Abbe  (now 
Monsignor)  Pierre  Batiffol — slight,  but  with  a  note 
of  real  distinction  both  in  style  and  matter;  an 
Introduction  by  Abbe  Jacquier  {Hisfoire  des  Livres 
du  N.  T.,  Paris,  1903),  and  a  commentary  by  Pere 
Calmes  (Paris  and  Rome,  1904) — both  (as  it  would 
seem)  sufficiently  competent  and  modern  but  not 
specially  remarkable. 

Besides  these  there  are  three  works  on  the  con- 
servative side  which  English-speaking  readers  at  least 
can  never  forget — the  searching  examination  of  the 
external  evidence  by  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot  (Boston,  1880, 
reprinted  in  Critical  Essays,  1888);  articles  in  The 
Expositor  for  the  early  months  of  1890  by  Bp.  Light- 
foot  (reprinted  with  other  matter  bearing  upon  the 
subject  in  Biblical  Essays,  1893);  ^^'^  the  classical 
commentary  on  the  Gospel  (first  published  as  part  of 
the  Speaker  s  Commentary)  by  Dr.  Westcott.  Of  these 
three  works  two  stand  out  as  landmarks  in  theological 
literature ;  Dr.  Lightfoot's  papers  were  somewhat 
slighter  and  less  permanent  in  form,  consisting  in  part 
of  Notes  for  Lectures,  though  they  bear  all  the  marks 
of  his  lucid  and  judicious  scholarship,  and  though  they 
are  I  think  still  specially  useful  for  students. 

An  Englishman  addressing  an  American  audience 
must  needs  pause  for  a  moment  over  the  first  of  these 
three  names  \     It  is  the  more  incumbent  on  me  to  do 

^  English  readers  may  be  reminded  that  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot  was  an 
American  Unitarian  who  died  in  1884.     He  was  a  leading  member 


Conservative  Opinion  13 

this  because  as  a  young  man,  at  a  time  when  en- 
couragement is  most  valued,  I  was  one  of  many  who 
profited  by  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot's  generous  and  self-deny- 
ing kindness.  He  opened  a  correspondence  with  me, 
and  sent  me  not  only  his  own  books  but  some  by 
other  writers  that  I  might  be  presumed  not  to  possess, 
and  it  was  touching  to  see  the  care  with  which  cor- 
rections were  made  in  these  in  his  own  finely  formed 
hand.  I  would  fain  not  only  pay  a  tribute  of  reverence 
to  the  memory  of  Dr.  Abbot,  but  also,  if  I  may,  repay 
a  little  of  my  own  debt  by  holding  up  his  example  to 
the  younger  generation  of  American  scholars  as  one 
that  I  would  earnestly  entreat  them  to  adopt  and 
follow.  I  do  not  know  how  far  I  am  right,  but  I  have 
always  taken  the  qualities  of  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot's  work  as 
specially  typical  of  the  American  mind  at  its  best. 
His  work  reminds  one  in  its  exactness  and  precision 
of  those  fine  mechanical  instruments  in  which  America 
has  so  excelled.  To  set  for  oneself  the  highest  pos- 
sible standard  of  accuracy,  and  to  think  no  time  and  no 
pains  misspent  in  the  pursuit  of  it,  is  a  worthy  object 
of  a  young  scholar's  ambition. 

In  like  manner  we,  in  England,  have  a  standard 
proposed  to  us  by  Dr.  Westcott's  famous  Commentary 
on  St.  John.      It  is  the  culminating  product  of  a  life 

of  the  American  Committee  which  joined  in  the  production  of  the 
Revised  Version,  and,  after  serving  as  Assistant  Librarian,  became 
Professor  of  New  Testament  Criticism  in  Harvard  University  in 
1872.  He  was  a  scholar  of  retiring  habits,  and  was  one  of  those 
who  spend  in  helping  and  improving  the  work  of  others  time  that 
might  have  been  given  to  great  work  of  their  own.  His  literary 
remains  were  religiously  collected  after  his  death. 


14  /.   Survey  of  Recent  Literature 

that  was  also  devoted  to  the  highest  ends.  It  is 
characteristic  of  Dr.  Westcott  that  the  Commentary 
was,  I  beheve,  hardly  altered  in  its  later  editions  from 
the  form  in  which  it  first  appeared.  This  was  due  to 
the  thoroughness  and  circumspection  with  which  the 
author  had  in  the  first  instance  carried  out  his  task. 
I  believe  that  in  spite  of  the  lapse  of  time  Dr.  West- 
cott's  Commentary  remains,  and  will  still  for  long 
remain,  the  best  that  we  have  on  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
as  it  is  also  (with  the  article  on  Origen)  the  best  and 
most  characteristic  work  that  its  author  bequeathed  to 
the  world. 

In  this  connexion  I  must  needs  mention  another 
American  scholar  and  divine,  to  whom  I  am  also  bound 
by  personal  ties  of  affectionate  regard — the  veteran 
Dr.  George  Park  Fisher  of  Yale.  It  is  matter  for 
thankfulness  that  he  has  been  able  to  give  to  the 
world,  carefully  brought  up  to  date,  a  new  edition  of 
his  Grounds  of  Theistic  and  Christian  Belief  ( 1 902). 
The  pages  devoted  to  the  Fourth  Gospel  are,  like  the 
rest,  full  of  knowledge  and  suffused  with  sweet  reason- 
ableness and  mild  wisdom.  Dr.  Fisher's  attitude  is 
perhaps  not  exacdy  that  of  the  younger  men,  but  it 
certainly  is  not  any  less  near  to  the  ideal.  If  I  were 
a  tutor  or  professor  in  an  American  seminary,  there  is 
no  book  that  I  should  more  warmly  recommend  to  my 
pupils.  To  imbibe  its  spirit  would  be  the  best  train- 
ing they  could  have.  I  should  think  it  especially 
excellent  as  a  starting-point  for  further  study.  It 
would  implant  nothing  that  would  have  to  be  unlearnt. 

Dr.  Ezra  Abbot  has  in  many  ways  found  a  worthy 


Conservative  Opinion  15 

inheritor  in  Dr.  Drummond  ;  and  it  is  perhaps  true 
that  the  positive  results  which  he  obtained  are  ade- 
quately embodied  in  Dr.  Drummond's  book,  though 
as  a  model  for  work  of  the  kind  the  older  essay  can 
never  become  antiquated.  But,  speaking  generally, 
I  should  think  it  a  great  misfortune  if  the  better 
examples  of  this  older  literature  were  thrust  out  of  use 
by  the  newer  and  more  advanced  criticism.  I  believe 
it  to  be  one  of  the  weak  points  in  that  criticism  that  it 
too  much  forgets  what  has  been  done.  It  contents 
itself  with  an  acceptance  that  is  often  grudging  or 
perfunctory  and  always  inadequate  of  results  that  have 
been  really  obtained.  The  scheme  of  argument  com- 
mon to  the  older  writers  was  to  prove,  in  gradually 
contracting  circles,  (i)  that  the  author  of  the  Gospel 
was  a  Jew  ;  (2)  that  he  was  a  Jew  of  Palestine  ;  (3) 
that  he  was  a  contemporary;  and  (4)  an  actual  com- 
panion and  eye-witness  of  the  ministry  of  our  Lord. 
We  must  expect  the  last  two  propositions  to  be  matter 
for  some  controversy,  and  I  shall  return  to  them  later ; 
but  it  seems  to  me  that  scant  justice  is  done  to  the 
arofument  as  a  whole. 

Since  this  paragraph  was  written  I  have  come  across 
some  words  of  Professor  von  Dobschiitz,  which  are  so 
much  to  the  point  that  I  am  tempted  to  quote  them  : 

*  That  the  Gospel  not  only  shows  a  good  knowledge 
of  Palestinian  localities  but  also  a  thoroughly  Jewish 
stamp  in  thought  and  expression,  is  one  of  the  truths 
rightly  emphasized  by  conservative  theology  which 
critical  theology  is  already,  though  reluctantly,  making 
up  its  mind  to  admit :  the  Hellenism  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  together  with  its  unity,  belongs  to  those  only 


i6  /.  Survey  of  Recent  Literature 

too  frequent  pre-conceived  opinions,  on  the  critical  side 
too,  which  are  all  the  more  obstinately  maintained  the 
more  unfounded  they  are  \' 

Would  that  all  critical  writers  were  so  clear-sighted 
and  so  candid ! 

2.  Mediating  Theories. 

The  really  crucial  point  in  the  argument  relating  to 
the  Fourth  Gospel  is  whether  or  not  the  author  was 
an  eye-witness  of  the  events  which  he  describes.  In 
any  case,  if  we  are  to  take  the  indications  of  the 
Gospel  itself,  the  author  must  be  identified  with  *  the 
disciple  whom  Jesus  loved.'  But  it  does  not  quite 
necessarily  follow  that  this  disciple  is  also  to  be  iden- 
tified with  the  Apostle  John,  the  son  of  Zebedee. 
Internally  there  seems  to  be  a  fair  presumption  that 
he  is  ;  and  externally,  the  evidence  seems  to  be  clear 
from  the  time  of  Irenaeus  (180-90)  onwards.  But 
neither  the  presumption  in  the  one  case,  nor  the 
evidence  in  the  other,  is  so  stringent  as  to  exclude  all 
possibility  of  doubt.  We  shall  have  presently  to  con- 
sider the  whole  question  upon  its  merits.  But  in  the 
meantime  we  note  that  in  recent  years  the  hypothesis 
has  been  definitely  put  forward  that  the  author  of  the 
Gospel  was  not  the  Apostle  John,  but  another  disciple 
— some  would  say  a  disciple  of  his — of  the  same  name, 
commonly  known  for  distinction  as  'the  Presbyter.' 
The  existence  of  this  second  John,  if  he  really  did 
exist,  rests  upon  a  single  line  of  an  extract  from 
Papias,  a  writer  of  the  first  half  of  the  second  century. 
He  too  is  called  a  '  disciple  of  the  Lord ' ;  so  that  he 
*  Probkme  d.  apost.  Zeitaiiers,  p.  92  f. 


Mediating  TJieorics  17 

too  may  have  been  an  eye-witness  as  fully,  or  almost 
as  fully,  as  the  Apostle. 

The  hypothesis  which  ascribes  the  Gospel  to  this 
John  the  Presbyter  has  taken  different  forms,  some 
more  and  some  less  favourable  to  the  historical  truth 
and  authority  of  the  Gospel. 

From  a  conservative  point  of  view  the  most 
attractive  form  of  the  hypothesis  is  that  put  forward 
by  the  late  Dr.  Hugo  Delff,  of  Husum,  in  Hanover  \ 
to  some  extent  adopted  and  defended  by  Bousset  in 
his  commentary  on  the  Apocalypse,  and  by  one  or  two 
others.  The  theory  is  that  the  beloved  disciple  was 
not  of  the  number  of  the  Twelve,  but  that  he  was 
a  native  of  Jerusalem,  of  a  priestly  family  of  wealth 
and  standing.  We  are  expressly  told  that  he  was 
'known  to  ^'  the  high  priest  (John  xviii.  15)  ;  and  he 
seems  to  have  had  special  information  as  to  what  went 
on  at  meetings  of  the  Sanhedrin  (vii.  45-52,  xi.  47-53, 
xii.  10  ff.).  These  facts  are  further  connected  with  the 
statement  by  Polycrates,  Bishop  of  Ephesus,  towards 
the  end  of  the  second  century,  that  the  John  w^ho  lay 
upon  the  breast  of  the  Lord  'became,  or  acted  as, 
priest  and  wore  the  frontlet  of  gold  '  (Eus.  H.  E.  v.  24. 
2  ft'.).  This  John  is  claimed  as  one  of  the  '  great 
lights  '  of  the  Churches  of  Asia. 

*  The  writings  of  Dr.  Delff  that  bear  upon  the  subject  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  are  Die  Geschichte  d.  Rabbi  Jesus  v.  Nazareth 
(Leipzig,  n.  d.,  but  the  preface  is  dated  1S89);  Das  vicrte  Evan- 
geliiim  wiederhergestellt  (Husum,  1890);  Neue  Beiirdge  zur  Kritik 
und  Erkldning  des  vierten  Evangeliums  (Husum,  1890). 

"^  Bousset  thinks  that  this  may  mean  'related  to'  the  high  priest 
{Offcftb.  p.  46  n.);  but  this  is  questioned  by  Zahn  [Eini.  ii.  483). 


i8  /.   Survey  of  Recent  Literature 

The  theory  opens  up  interesting  vistas,  the  dis- 
cussion of  which  must,  however,  be  reserved.  It  is 
consistent  with  the  attribution  of  a  high  degree  of 
authenticity  to  the  Gospel.  At  the  same  time  it  ought 
to  be  said  that  Delff  himself  regarded  certain  portions 
of  our  present  Gospel — more  particularly  those  re- 
lating to  the  Galilean  ministry— as  interpolations. 

Without  going  all  the  way  with  Delff,  and  without 
raising  the  question  as  to  the  identity  of  the  beloved 
disciple,  other  writers  who  have  inclined  towards  a 
middle  position  took  the  view  that  the  Gospel  was  the 
work  of  John  the  Presbyter,  whom  some  of  them 
regarded  as  a  disciple  of  John  the  Apostle.  At  the 
head  of  this  group  would  stand  Harnack  and  Schiirer, 
who  have  examined  the  external  evidence  very  closely. 
The  assigning  of  the  Gospel  to  John  the  Presbyter, 
or  to  some  unnamed  disciple  of  the  Apostle,  was 
indeed  the  key  to  the  compromise  offered  by  those 
who  came  nearest  to  the  traditional  position  at  the 
end  of  the  eighties  and  in  the  early  nineties. 

One  of  the  very  best  of  these  attempts  is  by  Professor 
von  Dobschtitz,  of  Jena,  in  his  brightly  written  Probleme 
des  apostolischen  Zeitalters^  (Leipzig,  1904),  to  which 
reference  has  been  made.  Dr.  von  Dobschutz  goes 
with  Delff  (whom  he  does  not  mention)  so  far  as  to 
describe  the  fourth  Evangelist  as  a  native  of  Jerusalem, 
and  to  identify  him  with  John  of  Ephesus.  He  does 
not,  however  (at  least  explicitly),  identify  him  with  the 

'  This  book  is  not  to  be  confused  with  Die  urchristlicheti  Gemeinden 
published  two  years  eariier,  and  now  translated  under  the  title 
Christian  Life  in  the  Primitive  Church. 


Mediating  Theories  19 

beloved  disciple  ;  and  he  treats  him  as  rather  the 
figure  behind  the  author,  than  the  actual  author,  of 
the  Gospel.  He  also,  I  cannot  but  think,  makes  the 
mistake  of  questioning  the  unity  of  the  Gospel. 
Probably,  if  we  had  his  views  in  full — which  as  yet  we 
have  not — they  would  come  under  the  next  head,  and 
not  under  that  of  which  we  are  now  speaking. 

In  Great  Britain  a  theory  similar  to  Harnack's  has 
found  expression  in  Dr.  James  Moffatt's  Historical 
New  Testament  (Edinburgh,  1901),  and  in  other 
quarters.  In  America,  it  is  represented  by  Professor 
McGiffert,  and,  more  or  less  nearly,  by  Professor 
Bacon.  Of  the  latter  I  hope  to  say  a  word  presently  ; 
the  former,  if  I  might  hazard  the  opinion,  has  not  yet 
said  his  last  word  on  the  Fourth  Gospel.  While 
I  recognize  in  what  he  has  written  many  sound  and 
true  observations,  there  seem  to  be  two  strains  in  his 
thought  which  are  not  as  yet  fully  harmonized. 

Even  Professor  Harnack,  whose  influence  is  greatest, 
has  not,  I  venture  to  think,  been  quite  consistent  in  the 
view  that  he  has  taken.  The  Gospel  may  be  assigned 
to  the  Presbyter  or  to  some  other  disciple,  and  yet 
have  different  degrees  of  value  ascribed  to  it  as  a 
historical  document.  In  this  respect  it  seems  to  me 
that  Dr.  Harnack  has  rather  blown  hot  and  cold  :  in  his 
Chro7iologie  d.  altchristliche7i  Litteratur  he  blew  hot  ; 
in  his  more  recent  lectures  (E.  Tr.  What  is  Christianity? 
p.  19  f),  and,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  on  Monday  last  he 
blew  cold  ^     A  good  deal  turns  on  the  description  of 

^  Professor  Harnack  gave  a  lecture,  which  I  was  privileged  to 
hear,  at  the  Union  Seminary  on  October  lo,  1904. 

C   2 


20  /.   Survey  of  Recent  Literature 

John  the  Presbyter  by  Papias.  In  the  text  of  the 
extract  as  it  stands  both  John  the  Presbyter  and 
Arlstion  are  called  *  disciples  of  the  Lord.'  There  is 
some  tendency  among  critical  writers  to  get  rid  of 
these  words  as  a  gloss ;  if  they  are  retained,  they  may 
be  taken  in  a  stricter  or  a  laxer  sense  ;  but  if  they 
really  cover  a  relation  such  as  that  of  the  '  beloved 
disciple,'  there  could  not  be  a  better  guarantee  of 
authenticity. 

However  this  may  be — and  the  subject  is  one  of 
which  I  hope  to  speak  in  more  detail — in  any  case  it 
must  be  somewhere  within  the  limits  marked  out  by 
Delff  on  the  one  hand,  and  Harnack  with  his  allies 
and  followers  on  the  other,  or  else  by  means  of  the 
theories  that  I  am  just  about  to  mention,  that  an 
understanding  must  be  reached  between  the  two  sides, 
if  that  understanding  is  at  all  to  take  the  form  of 
compromise. 

3.    Partition  Theories. 

Where  two  or  more  persons  are  concerned  in  the 
composition  of  a  book,  the  relation  between  them  may 
be  through  a  written  document,  or  it  may  be  oral. 
Hitherto  we  have  been  going  upon  the  latter  assump- 
tion :  the  mediating  theories  that  we  have  been  con- 
sidering, so  far  as  they  were  mediating,  have  treated 
the  writer  of  the  Gospel,  whatever  his  name,  as  a 
disciple  or  associate  of  St.  John  the  Apostle;  and  the 
information  derived  from  him  is  supposed  to  have 
come  by  way  of  personal  intercourse.  But  it  is  quite 
conceivable  that  St.  John  may  have  set  down  some- 


Partition  Theories 


21 


thing  on  paper,  and  that  some  later  Christian — disciple 
or  not — took  this  and  worked  it  up  into  our  present 
Gospel.  Accordingly,  various  attempts  have  been 
made  at  different  times  to  mark  off  a  Gospel  within 
the  Gospel,  an  original  authentic  document  derived 
from  a  first-hand  authority — either  the  Apostle  or  the 
Presbyter — and  certain  added  material  incorporated 
in  the  Gospel  as  we  now  have  it.  Many  of  these 
attempts  are  obsolete  and  do  not  need  discussion.  It 
has  already  been  mentioned  that  Delff — without  any 
clear  necessity  even  from  his  own  point  of  view — cuts 
out  more  particularly  the  Galilean  passages  and  some 
others  with  them  as  interpolations.  These  additions 
to  the  Gospel  he  regards  as  the  work  of  the  author  of 
chap,  xxi  ^.  But  the  most  systematic  and  important 
experiments  in  this  direction  are  those  of  Dr.  Wendt 
and  Dr.  Briggs. 

After  a  preliminary  sketch  of  his  theory  in  the  first 
edition  of  hisZ^^r^  Jesic  (1886),  i.  215-342,  Dr.  H.  H. 
Wendt  brought  out  in  1900  an  elaborate  and  fully 
argued  analysis  of  the  Gospel,  carefully  dissecting 
each  section  and  assigning  the  parts  either  to  the 
Apostolic  author  or  to  the  later  redactor.  Approxi- 
mately similar  results  were  obtained  independently, 
with  a  less  amount  of  published  argument,  by  Dr. 
C.  A.  Briggs  in  his  General  hitrodtution  to  the  Study 
of  Holy  Scripture  (1899),  p.  327,  and  in  his  Neiu 
Light  071  the  Life  of  Jesses  (1904),  pp.  140-58.  A  like 
theory  has  been  put  forward  by  Professor  Soltau 
{Zeitschrift  f  d.  neutest.  Wisseiischaft,  1901,  pp.  140-9). 
^  £)as  vierte  Evafig.  p.  1 2  ff. 


22  /.    Survey  of  Recent  Literature 

In  my  opinion  all  attempts  of  this  kind  are  fore- 
doomed to  failure.  The  underlying  motive  is  to  rescue 
some  portion  of  the  Gospel  as  historical,  while  others 
are  dismissed  as  untrustworthy.  At  the  same  time  it 
is  allowed  that  the  separation  can  only  be  made  where 
there  is  a  real  break  in  the  connexion.  On  this 
Schmiedel  pertinently  remarks : 

'  There  is  much  reason  to  fear  that  distrust  of  the 
authenticity  of  the  substance  often  causes  an  inter- 
ruption of  the  connexion  to  be  imagined  where  in 
reality  there  is  none.  Many  passages  of  the  same 
sort  as  others,  which  give  Wendt  occasion  for  the 
separating  process,  are  left  by  him  untouched,  when 
the  result  would  not  be  removal  of  some  piece  held  to 
be  open  to  exception  in  respect  of  its  contents;  the 
ground  for  exception  which  he  actually  takes,  on  the 
other  hand,  is  often  altogether  non-existent  ^' 

I  look  with  considerable  distrust  on  many  of  the 
attempts  that  are  made  to  divide  up  documents  on 
the  ground  of  want  of  connexion.  I  suspect  that  the 
standard  of  consecutiveness  applied  is  often  too 
Western  and  too  modern.  But  the  one  rock  on 
which  it  seems  to  me  that  any  partition  theory  must 
be  wrecked  is  the  deep-seated  unity  of  structure  and 
composition  which  is  characteristic  of  the  Gospel. 
Dr.  Briggs  turns  the  edge  of  this  argument  by 
referring  the  unity  to  the  masterful  hand  of  the  editor. 
It  is,  no  doubt,  open  to  him  to  do  so  ;  but  we  may 
observe  that,  if  in  this  way  he  makes  the  theory 
difficult  to  disprove,  he  also  makes  it  difficult  to 
prove.     I  must  needs  think  that  both  in  his  case  and 

^  Enc.  Bibl  ii.  2555. 


Partition  Theories  23 

in  Dr.  Wendt's  the  proof  is  quite  insufficient.  I  would 
undertake  to  show  that  the  distinctive  features  of  the 
Gospel  are  just  as  plentiful  in  the  passages  excised  as 
in  those  that  are  retained.  Perhaps  the  most  tangible 
point  made  by  the  two  critics  is  the  attempt  to  dis- 
tinguish between  the  words  for  '  miracle  ' :  '  works  ' 
they  would  assign  to  the  earlier  writer,  and  '  signs  '  to 
the  later.  We  remember,  however,  that  the  combina- 
tion of  '  signs  '  and  *  wonders '  occurs  markedly  in 
St.  Paul,  e.g.  Rom.  xv.  19,  2  Cor.  xii.  12,  and  is 
indeed  characteristic  of  early  Christian  literature  long 
before  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  written. 

Another  very  original  suggestion  of  Dr.  Briggs' 
which  would  be  helpful  if  we  could  accept  it,  is  that 
we  are  not  tied  down  to  the  chronological  order  of  the 
Gospel  as  we  have  it,  but  that  this  too  is  due  to  the 
later  editor,  who  has  arranged  the  sections  of  his 
narrative  rather  according  to  subject  than  to  sequence 
in  time.  I  am  prepared  to  allow  that  the  narrative 
may  not  be  always  strictly  in  the  order  in  which  the 
events  occurred ;  and  it  is  true  that  there  are  some 
difficulties  which  the  hypothesis  would  meet.  At  the 
same  time  we  cannot  but  notice  that  the  order  is  by 
no  means  accidental,  but  that  attention  is  expressly 
drawn  to  it  in  the  Gospel  itself;  see  (e.  g.  ii.  11,  iv.  54, 
xxi.  14).  And  some  incidents  seem  clearly  to  hang 
together  which  Dr.  Briggs  has  divided  ^  (e.g.  i.  29,  35, 
43,  where  the  connexion  is  natural  historically,  as  well 
as  expressly  noted  by  the  Evangelist). 

I  fear  that  the  learned  Professor  is  seeking  in  a 
*  New  Light,  &c.,  p.  149. 


24  /.    Survey  of  Recent  Literature 

wrong  direction  for  a  solution  of  the  problem  of  the 
Gospel.  But  I  would  be  the  last  to  undervalue  the 
vigorous  independence  and  the  fearlessness  and  fer- 
tility in  experiment  that  are  conspicuous  in  all  his 
writings. 

Perhaps  I  should  be  right  in  saying  a  few  words  at 
this  point  about  Professor  B.  W.  Bacon  of  Yale. 
His  view  is  not  as  yet  (I  believe)  quite  sufficiently 
developed  in  print  for  me  to  be  clear  how  much  he 
would  refer  to  oral  transmission  and  how  much  to 
a  written  source.  He  distinguishes  three  hands  in 
the  Gospel.  I  gather  that  the  first  would  be  that  of 
the  Apostle,  but  he  as  yet  stands  dimly  in  the  back- 
ground. Then  comes  the  main  body  of  the  Gospel, 
without  the  Appendix.  This  is  ascribed  to  John  the 
Presbyter,  whom — rather  by  a  paradox — Professor 
Bacon  would  seek  in  Palestine  and  not  in  Asia  Minor. 
Lastly  there  is  the  editor  who  works  over  the  whole. 

The  two  articles  lately  contributed  to  the  Hibbert 
Journal  (i.  511  ff.,  ii.  323  ff.)  ^  are  highly  original, 
very  incisive,  and  exceedingly  clever.  My  objection 
to  them  would  be  that  they  are  too  clever.  Professor 
Bacon  has  been  to  Germany,  and  learnt  his  lesson 
there  too  well.  At  least  I  find  myself  differing 
profoundly  from  his  whole  method  of  argument.  The 
broad  simple  arguments  that  seem  to  me  really  of 
importance  (Irenaeus,  Heracleon,  Polycrates,  Tatian, 
Clement  of  Alexandria)  he  puts  aside,  and  then  he 
spends  his  strength  in  making  bricks  with  a  minimum 

^  A  third  article,  on  the  internal  evidence,  appeared  in  January  of 
the  present  year,  iii.  353  ff. 


Partition  Theories  25 

of  straw,  and  even  with  no  straw  at  all  (the  argument 
from  silence). 

4.   Uncompromising  Rejectioii. 

I  began  by  saying  that  the  tendency  towards  rap- 
prochement  which  was  characteristic  of  the  eighties 
and  nineties,  gave  way  towards  the  end  of  the  century, 
and  has  been  succeeded  in  recent  years  by  conspicuous 
instances  of  uncompromising  denial,  at  once  of  the 
apostolic  authorship  of  the  Gospel  and  of  its  historical 
character.  The  names  of  Jiilicher,  Schmiedel,  Wrede, 
Wernle,  Jean  Reville  and  Loisy  are  sufficient  evidence 
of  this. 

We  shall  probably  not  be  wrong  in  classing  with  these 
writers  the  eminent  scholar  Dr.  H.  J.  Holtzmann  of 
Strassburg.  It  is  indeed  characteristic  of  Dr.  Holtz- 
mann's  method  to  avoid  anything  like  dogmatic  asser- 
tion of  his  own  opinion,  to  work  in  with  subtle  skill 
a  kaleidoscopic  presentation  of  the  opinions  of  others, 
while  himself  remaining  in  the  background.  He  does 
indeed  leave  room  for  a  rather  larger  amount  of 
authentic  tradition  in  the  Gospel  than  the  other  writers 
mentioned.  Still,  in  the  main  his  position  is  sceptical, 
both  as  to  the  Asian  tradition  of  St.  John,  and  as  to 
the  historical  character  of  the  Gospel. 

It  may  be  observed  in  passing  that  Dr.  H.  J. 
Holtzmann  of  Strassburg  should  be  carefully  distin- 
guished from  his  younger  cousin  Oscar  Holtzmann, 
who  is  now  Professor  at  Giessen.  Dr.  Oscar  Holtz- 
mann published  a  monograph  on  the  Fourth  Gospel 
in  1887,  and  he  has  since  brought  out  a  Life  of  Christ 


26  /.    Survey  of  Recent  Literature 

which  has  lately  been  translated  into  English.  The 
two  cousins  occupy  much  the  same  general  position; 
the  younger  has  not  the  distinction  of  the  elder,  but 
he  compensates  to  some  extent  by  greater  clearness 
and  definiteness  in  the  expression  of  his  views. 

Another  of  the  older  writers,  Dr.  O.  Pfleiderer,  is 
even  more  thorough-going  as  an  allegorist.  For  him 
the  Gospel  is  from  first  to  last  a  didactic  work  in 
the  guise  of  history ;  it  is  a  *  transparent  allegory  of 
religious  and  dogmatic  ideas  ^'  He  would  place  the 
first  draft  of  the  Gospel  about  the  year  135,  the 
last  chapter  and  the  First  Epistle  about  150  2.  But 
I  have  long  thought  that  this  attractive  writer,  though 
interesting  and  instructive  as  a  historian  of  thought, 
is  a  '  negligible  quantity '  in  the  field  of  criticism 
proper. 

The  other  four  German  writers  whom  I  have  men- 
tioned all  belong  to  the  younger  generation.  Dr. 
Schmiedel  (who  though  a  Swiss  Professor  is,  I  believe, 
German  by  birth)  is  the  eldest,  and  he  is  not  yet  quite 
fifty-three  :  Jiilicher,  the  next  on  the  list,  is  forty-seven. 
And  as  they  belong  to  the  younger  generation,  so 
also  they  may  be  said  to  mark  the  rise  of  a  new 
School,  or  new  method  of  treatment,  in  German 
Theology.  The  Germany  for  which  they  speak  is 
not  the  dreaming,  wistful,  ineffective,  romantic  Germany 
of  the  past,  but  the  practical,  forceful,  energetic  and 
assertive  Germany  of  the  present.  All,  as  I  have 
said,  are  able  writers ;  and  the  type  of  their  ability 

^   Urchristentum  (ed.  2,  Berlin,  1902),  ii.  389. 
'  Ibid.  p.  450. 


Uncompromising  Rejection  tti 

has  much  in  common,  though  they  have  also  their 
little  individual  differences.  They  have  all  a  marked 
directness  and  lucidity  of  style.  What  they  think 
they  say,  without  hesitation  and  without  reserve  ;  no 
one  can  ever  be  in  any  doubt  as  to  their  meaning. 
They  are  all  apt  to  be  somewhat  contemptuous,  not 
only  of  divergent  views,  but  of  a  type  of  mind  that 
differs  from  their  own.  Of  the  four,  Julicher  and 
especially  Wernle  have  the  warmer  temperament ; 
Schmiedel  and  Wrede  are  cold  and  severe.  Wrede 
writes  like  a  mathematician,  who  puts  Q.  E.  D.  at 
the  end  of  each  step  in  his  argument — though  it 
would  be  a  misfortune  if  the  demonstration  were 
taken  to  be  as  complete  as  he  thinks  it.  Schmiedel 
is  rather  the  lawyer  who  pursues  his  adversary  from 
point  to  point  with  relentless  acumen  :  if  we  could 
grant  the  major  premises  of  his  argument,  there 
would  be  much  to  admire  in  his  handling  of  the 
minor;  but  the  major  premises,  as  I  think  I  shall 
show,  are  often  at  fault.  Julicher  is  just  the  down- 
right capable  person,  who  sees  vividly  what  he  sees 
and  is  intolerant  of  that  which  does  not  appeal 
to  him.  Wernle  alternately  attracts  and  repels ;  he 
attracts  by  his  real  enthusiasm  for  that  with  which 
he  sympathizes,  by  his  skill  in  presentation,  and  his 
careful  observance  of  perspective  and  proportion  ;  he 
repels  by  aggressiveness  and  self-confidence. 

The  two  French  writers  also  have  somethine  in 
common,  though  they  belong  to  different  communions. 
We  are  not  surprised  to  find  that  both  have  an  easy 
grace  of  style,  to  which  we  might  in  both  cases  also 


28  /.    Survey  of  Recent  Literature 

give  the  epithet  '  airy,'  because  both  are  fond  of  speak- 
ing in  generalities  which  are  not  always  in  the  closest 
contact  with  facts  ;  both  are  thorough-going  allegorists, 
and  regard  the  whole  Gospel  as  a  pure  product  of 
ideas  and  not  literal  history.  In  spite  of  their  differ- 
ence of  communion,  M.  Loisy  is  on  the  critical  side 
of  his  mind  as  essentially  rationalist  as  his  Protestant 
confrere,  though  he  brings  back,  by  an  act  of  faith 
which  some  of  us  would  call  a  tour  de  force,  in  the 
region  of  dogmatics  what  he  had  taken  away  in  the 
field  of  criticism. 

It  seems  to  me  that  there  is  one  word  that  requires 
to  be  said,  though  I  am  anxious  not  to  have  my 
motive  misunderstood  in  saying  it.  I  do  not  wish 
to  do  so  in  the  least  ad  invidiam.  Controversy  is, 
I  hope,  no  longer  conducted  in  that  manner.  I  speak 
simply  of  an  objective  fact  which  has  too  important 
a  bearing  on  the  whole  question  to  be  ignored. 

When  I  read  an  argument  by  Professor  Schiirer, 
and  try  to  reply  to  it,  I  am  conscious  that  we  are 
arguing  (so  to  speak)  in  the  same  plane.  I  feel  that 
the  attitude  of  my  opponent  to  the  evidence  is  sub- 
stantially the  same  as  my  own.  Whatever  the  pre- 
suppositions may  be  deep  down  in  his  mind,  he  at  any 
rate  keeps  them  in  abeyance.  No  doubt  we  differ 
widely  enough  as  to  detail ;  but  in  principle  I  should 
credit  my  opponent  with  an  attitude  that  is  really 
judicial,  that  tries  to  keep  dogmatic  considerations,  or 
questions  of  ultimate  belief  as  much  in  suspense  as 
possible,  and  to  weigh  the  arguments  for  and  against 
in  equal  scales.     But  when  I  pass  over  to  the  younger 


Uncompromising  Rejection  29 

theologians,  I  no  longer  feel  that  this  is  so ;  we  seem 
to  be  arguing,  not  in  the  same,  but  in  different  planes. 
There  is  a  far-reaching  presupposition,  not  merely  far 
back  but  near  the  front  of  their  minds.  I  cannot 
regard  them  as  fellow  seekers  in  the  sense  that  we 
are  both  doing  our  best  to  ascertain  how  far  the  events 
of  the  Gospel  history  really  transcended  common 
experience.  I  take  it  that  on  this  point  their  minds 
are  made  up  before  they  begin  to  put  pen  to  paper. 

They  all  start  with  the  '  reduced '  conception  of 
Christianity  current  in  so  many  quarters,  that  is  akin 
to  the  ancient  Ebionism  or  Arianism.  But  so  far 
as  they  do  this  their  verdict  as  to  the  Fourth  Gospel 
is  determined  for  them  beforehand.  The  position  is 
stated  with  great  frankness  by  Mr.  Conybeare  : 

'  It  may  indeed  be  said  that  if  Athanasius  had  not 
had  the  Fourth  Gospel  to  draw  texts  from,  Arius 
would  never  have  been  confuted.  Had  the  fathers  of 
the  third,  fourth,  and  fifth  centuries  not  known  this 
Gospel,  or  not  embraced  it  as  authentic,  the  Church 
would  have  remained  semi-Ebionite,  and  the  councils 
of  Nice  and  Ephesus  would  never  have  taken  place  ^' 

This  does  not  indeed  quite  correspond  to  the  facts. 
To  make  it  do  so,  we  should  have  to  blot  out  St.  Paul, 
and  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament,  as  well  as 
St.  John.  But  just  so  far  as  the  reasoning  holds 
good,  it  is  obvious  that  we  may  invert  it.  If  a  writer 
starts  with  a  conception  of  Christianity  that  is  '  semi- 
Ebionite  '  or  '  semi-Arian,'  he  is  bound  at  all  costs  to 
rule  out  the  Fourth  Gospel,  not  only  as  a  dogmatic 
authority,  but  as  a  record  of  historical  fact. 
*  Hibbert  Journal^  ii.  620. 


30  /.   Survey  of  Recent  Literature 

Another  characteristic  is  common  to  the  writers  of 
the  School  of  which  we  are  speaking.  The  complexity 
of  a  critical  hypothesis  very  rarely  stands  in  the  way 
of  its  adoption ;  but  a  very  little  psychological  com- 
plexity acts  as  a  deterrent.  For  instance,  after  quoting 
from  B.  Weiss  some  rather  exaggerated  language  as 
to  the  freedom  used  by  the  evangelist  in  reproducing 
the  discourses,  Schmiedel  goes  on  thus  : 

'  As  compared  with  such  a  line  of  defence,  there  is 
a  positive  relief  from  an  intolerable  burden  as  soon  as 
the  student  has  made  up  his  mind  to  give  up  any  such 
theory  as  that  of  the  "  genuineness  "  of  the  Gospel,  as 
also  of  its  authenticity  in  the  sense  of  its  being  the 
work  of  an  eye-witness  who  meant  to  record  actual 
history  ^' 

So  far  from  being  an  *  intolerable  burden,'  it  seems 
to  me  that  Weiss'  theory  is  not  only  in  itself  perfectly 
natural,  nay  inevitable,  but  that  it  is  also  specially 
helpful  as  enabling  us  to  account  at  one  and  the  same 
time  for  the  elements  that  are,  and  those  that  are 
not,  strictly  genuine  in  the  report  of  the  discourses. 

Jiilicher  writes  to  much  the  same  effect  as  Schmiedel ; 
and  the  passage  which  follows  is  indeed  very  charac- 
teristic of  his  habit  of  mind  : 

'  The  defenders  of  the  "  genuineness  "  of  the  Gospel 
indeed  for  the  most  part  allow  that  John  has  carried 
out  a  certain  idealization  with  the  discourses  of  Jesus, 
that  in  writing  he  has  found  himself  in  a  slight  condi- 
tion of  ecstasy,  in  short,  that  his  presentation  of  his 
hero  is  something  more  than  historical.  With  such 
mysticism  or  phraseology  science  can  have  no  concern  ; 
in  the  Johannean  version  of  Christ's  discourses  form  and 

^  Enc.  Bill  ii.  2554. 


Uncompromising  Rejection  31 

substance  cannot  be  separated,  the  form  to  be  assigned 
to  the  later  writer,  and  the  substance  to  Jesus  Himself: 
sint  ut  S2int  aut  noii  sint  !  .  .  ! 

To  please  Professor  Julicher  a  picture  must  be  all 
black  or  all  white ;  he  is  intolerant  of  half-shades  that 
pass  from  the  one  into  the  other.  And  no  doubt  there 
are  some  problems  for  the  treatment  of  which  such 
a  habit  is  an  advantage,  but  hardly  those  which  have 
to  do  with  living  human  personalities. 

The  French  writers,  like  the  German,  have  a  certain 
resemblance  to  each  other.  To  some  of  these  points 
I  shall  have  to  come  back  in  detail  later.  I  will  only 
note  for  the  present  that  they  are  both  allegorists 
of  an  extreme  kind.  I  would  just  for  the  present 
commend  to  both  a  passage  of  Wernle's  : 

'  This  conception,  however,  of  the  Fourth  Gospel 
as  a  philosophical  work,  to  which  the  Alexandrines 
first  gave  currency,  and  which  is  still  widely  held 
to-day,  is  a  radically  wrong  one.  John's  main  idea, 
the  descent  of  the  Son  of  Man  to  reveal  the  Father, 
is  unphilosophical.  .  .  .  So,  too,  the  Johannine  miracles 
are  never  intended  to  be  taken  in  a  purely  allegorical 
sense.  The  fact  of  their  actual  occurrence  is  the 
irrefragable  proof  of  God's  appearance  upon  earth  \' 

If  the  miracles  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  were  facts  there 
was  some  point  in  the  constant  appeals  that  the 
Gospel  makes  to  them  ;  but  there  would  be  no  point 
if  these  appeals  were  to  a  set  of  didactic  fictions. 

Within  the  last  few  months  a  monograph  has 
appeared,  which    from  its  general   tendency  may  be 

^  Beginnings  of  Christianity^  ii.  i66fr. ;  cf.  von  Dobschiitz, 
Probleme,  p.  94. 


32  /.    Survey  of  Recent  Literature 

ranged  with  the  works  of  which  we  have  been  speak- 
ing, though  in  its  method  it  rather  stands  by  itself, 
E.  Schwartz,  Ueber  den  Tod  der  Sohne  Zebedaei  (BerHn, 
1904).  Dr.  Schwartz  is  the  editor  of  Eusebius  in 
the  Berlin  series,  and  his  point  of  view  is  primarily 
philological.  He  writes  in  a  disagreeable  spirit,  at 
once  carping  and  supercilious.  The  only  generous 
words  in  his  paper  are  a  few  in  reference  to  the 
Church  historian.  He  exemplifies  copiously  most 
of  the  procedure  specially  deprecated  in  these  lectures. 
His  monograph  has,  however,  a  value  of  its  own,  from 
the  precise  and  careful  way  in  which  he  has  collected 
and  discusses  the  material  bearing  upon  the  history 
of  the  Evangelist  and  of  the  Gospel  in  the  first  and 
earlier  part  of  the  second  century. 

5.  Recent  Reaction, 

Far  as  I  conceive  that  all  these  writers  have  travelled 
away  from  the  truth,  they  followed  each  other  in  such 
quick  succession  that  it  would  have  been  strange  if 
public  opinion  had  not  been  affected  by  them.  To 
one  who  himself  firmly  believed  in  St.  John's  author- 
ship of  the  Gospel,  and  in  its  value  as  a  record  of 
the  beginning  of  Christianity,  the  outlook  last  autumn 
seemed  as,  I  said,  very  black.  A  single  book  dispelled 
the  clouds  and  cleared  the  air.  Dr.  Drummond's 
Character  a?id  Authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  is 
of  special  value  to  the  defenders  of  the  Gospel  for 
two  reasons  :  (i)  because  it  is  the  work  of  one  who 
cannot  in  any  case  be  accused  of  dogmatic  preposses- 
sions, as  it  would  to  all  appearance  be  more  favourable 


Recent  Reaction  33 

to  his  general  position  that  the  Gospel  should  not 
be  genuine  or  authentic  ;  and  (2)  because  the  whole 
work  is  something  more  than  a  defence  of  the 
Gospel ;  it  is  a  striking  a[)plication  to  a  particular 
problem  of  principles  of  criticism  in  many  respects 
differing  from  those  at  present  in  vogue,  and  at  the 
same  time,  as  I  cannot  but  think,  a  marked  improve- 
ment on  them. 

To  these  points  must  be  added  the  inherent  qualities 
of  the  book  itself — the  thorough  knowledge  with  which 
it  is  written,  its  evident  sincerity  and  effort  to  get  at 
realities,  its  nervous  directness  and  force  of  style,  its 
judicial  habit  of  weighing  all  that  is  to  be  said  on 
both  sides. 

Perhaps  the  most  important  and  the  most  far- 
reaching  of  all  the  corrections  of  current  practice  is 
a  passage  in  the  text  with  the  note  appended  to  it 
upon  the  argument  fro7n  silence.  The  text  is  dealing 
with  the  common  assumption  that  because  Justin 
quotes  less  freely  from  the  Fourth  Gospel  than  from 
the  other  three,  therefore  he  must  have  ascribed  to 
it  a  lower  degree  of  authority. 

'  But  why,  then,  it  may  be  asked,  has  Justin  not 
quoted  the  Fourth  Gospel  at  least  as  often  as  the 
other  three  ?  I  cannot  tell,  any  more  than  I  can  tell 
why  he  has  never  named  the  supposed  authors  of  his 
Memoirs,  or  has  mentioned  only  one  of  the  parables, 
or  made  no  reference  to  the  Apostle  Paul,  or  nowhere 
quoted  the  Apocalypse,  though  he  believed  it  to 
be  an  apostolic  and  prophetical  work.  His  silence 
may  be  due  to  pure  accident,  or  the  book  may  have 
seemed  less  adapted  to  his  apologetic  purposes  ;  but 
considering  how  many  things  there  are  about  which 


34  /•   Survey  of  Recent  Literature 

he  is  silent,  we  cannot  admit  that  the  argumentum  a 
silentio  possesses  in  this  case  any  vaHdity.' 

To  this  is  added  a  note  which  raises  the  whole 
general  question : 

*  An  instructive  instance  of  the  danger  of  arguing 
from  what  is  not  told  is  furnished  by  Theophilus  of 
Antioch.  He  does  not  mention  the  names  of  the 
writers  of  the  Gospels,  except  John ;  he  does  not  tell 
us  anything  about  any  of  them  ;  he  says  nothing  about 
the  origin  or  the  date  of  the  Gospels  themselves,  or 
about  their  use  in  the  Church.  He  quotes  from  them 
extremely  little,  though  he  quotes  copiously  from  the 
Old  Testament.  But  most  singular  of  all,  in  a  defence 
of  Christianity  he  tells  us  nothing  about  Christ  Him- 
self; if  I  am  not  mistaken,  he  does  not  so  much  as 
name  Him  or  allude  to  Him;  and,  if  the  supposition 
were  not  absurd,  it  might  be  argued  with  great  plausi- 
bility that  he  cannot  have  known  anything  about 
Him.  For  he  undertakes  to  explain  the  origin  of  the 
word  Christian ;  but  there  is  not  a  word  about  Christ, 
and  his  conclusion  is  rwi^h  tovtov  eifeKeu  KaXovfieBa 
OTL  •)(^pion^6a  iXaLov  Oeov  [Ad  Autol.  i.  1 2).  In  the 
following  chapter,  when  he  would  establish  the  doctrine 
of  the  resurrection,  you  could  not  imagine  that  he  had 
heard  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ ;  and  instead  of 
referring  to  this,  he  has  recourse  to  the  changing 
seasons,  the  fortune  of  seeds,  the  dying  and  reappear- 
ance of  the  moon,  and  the  recovery  from  illness.  We 
may  learn  from  these  curious  facts  that  it  is  not  correct 
to  say  that  a  writer  knows  nothing  of  certain  things, 
simply  because  he  had  not  occasion  to  refer  to  them 
in  his  only  extant  writing  :  or  even  because  he  does  not 
mention  them  when  his  subject  would  seem  naturally 
to  lead  him  to  do  so '.' 

The  remarkable  thing  in  this  note  is  not  only  its 

independence  and  sagacity,  but  more  particularly  the 

*  Character,  &c.,  p.  157  f. 


Recent  Reaction  35 

trained  sagacity  which  brings  to  bear  upon  the  argu- 
ment just  those  examples  which  are  most  directly  in 
point  and  most  telling. 

Professor  Bacon,  in  the  first  of  his  recent  articles 
(Hiddert  yournal,  i.  5 1 3),  good-naturedly  defends  the 
present  writer  from  the  charge  of  wishing  to  discredit 
the  argument  from  silence  in  general.  And  it  is  true 
that  in  the  place  to  which  he  refers  I  had  in  mind  only 
a  particular  application  of  the  argument.  Still  I  am 
afraid  that  I  do  wish  to  see  its  credit  abated.  At 
least  it  is  my  belief  that  too  much  use  is  made  of  the 
argument,  and  that  too  much  weight  is  attached  to  it. 
There  are  two  main  objections  to  the  way  in  which 
the  argument  is  often  handled,  (i)  The  critic  docs 
not  ask  himself  what  is  silent — what  extent  of  material 
does  the  argument  cover  ?  Often  this  extent  is  so 
small  that,  on  the  doctrine  of  chances,  no  inference 
can  rightly  be  drawn  from  it.  And  (2)  experience 
shows  that  the  argument  is  often  most  fallacious. 
Dr.  Drummond's  examples  of  this  will  I  hope  become 
classical  \ 

Dr.     Drummond's   book    contains   a    multitude   of 

^  An  incidental  passage  in  Dr.  Dill's  Roman  Society  from  Nero  to 
Marcus  Aurelius  (p.  120  f.)  deserves  to  be  set  by  the  side  of 
Dr.  Drummond's.  He  is  speaking  of  the  Satiricon  of  Petronius. 
'  Those  who  have  attributed  it  to  the  friend  and  victim  of  Nero  have 
been  confronted  with  the  silence  of  Quintilian,  Juvenal,  and  Martial, 
with  the  silence  of  Tacitus  as  to  any  literary  work  by  Petronius, 
whose  character  and  end  he  has  described  with  a  curious  sympathy 
and  care.  It  is  only  late  critics  of  the  lower  empire,  such  as 
Macrobius,  and  a  dilettante  aristocrat  like  Sidonius  Apollinaris,  who 
pay  any  attention  to  this  remarkable  work  of  genius.  And  Sidonius 
seems  to  make  its  author  a  citizen  of  Marseilles.     Yet  silence  in 

D  2 


36  /.   Survey  of  Recent  Literature 

passages  like  the  above  and  exhibiting  the  same 
qualities.  Many  of  them  are  a  vindication  of  popular 
judgement  as  against  the  far-fetched  arguments  of 
professed  scholars.  The  excellence  of  his  method 
seems  to  me  to  consist  largely  in  this,  that  he  begins 
by  making  for  himself  an  imaginative  picture. of  the 
conditions  with  which  he  has  to  deal,  not  only  of  the 
particular  piece  of  evidence  which  shows  upon  the  sur- 
face, but  of  the  inferential  background  lying  behind  it; 
that  he  thus  escapes  the  danger  of  the  doctrinaire  who 
argues  straight  from  the  one  bit  of  evidence  before 
him  to  the  conclusion  ;  and  that  he  also  constantly 
tests  the  process  of  his  argument  by  reference  to 
parallel  conditions  and  circumstances  in  our  own  day 
which  we  can  verify  for  ourselves. 

If  I  were  to  express  an  opinion  on  the  characteristic 
positions  which  Dr.  Drummond  takes  up,  I  think  it 
would  be  that,  whereas  he  seems  to  me  to  overstate 
a  little — but  only  a  little — the  external  evidence  for 
the  Gospel,  he  at  the  same  time  somewhat  under- 
states the  internal  evidence.  He  gives  his  decision 
against  the  Fourth  Gospel  sometimes  where  I  cannot 
help  thinking  that  a  writer  of  equal  impartiality  would 
not  necessarily  do  so.     It  would  also  be  unfair  if  I  did 

such  cases  may  be  very  deceptive.  Martial  and  Statius  never 
mention  one  another,  and  both  might  seem  unknown  to  Tacitus. 
And  Tacitus,  after  the  fashion  of  the  Roman  aristocrat,  in  painting 
the  character  of  Petronius,  may  not  have  thought  it  relevant  or 
important  to  notice  a  light  work  such  as  the  Saiiricon,  even  if  he  had 
ever  seen  it.  He  does  not  think  it  worth  while  to  mention  the 
histories  of  the  Emperor  Claudius,  the  tragedies  of  Seneca,  or  the 
Punka  of  Silius  Italicus.' 


Recent  Reaction  37 

not  say  that  his  general  estimate  of  the  historical 
trustworthiness  of  the  Gospel  is  lower  than  I  should 
form  myself. 

I  have  spoken  of  Dr.  Drummond's  book  first 
because  of  its  importance  as  a  landmark  in  the  study 
of  the  Gospel,  and  because  it  covers  the  whole  of  the 
ground  with  which  we  are  concerned.  But  another 
book  preceded  it  by  a  week  or  two  in  the  date  of  its 
publication,  which  as  yet  deals  only  with  a  limited 
portion  of  this  ground,  and  yet  which,  unless  I  am 
mistaken,  presents  qualities  similar  in  general  character 
to  those  of  Dr.  Drummond,  though  perhaps  the  ex- 
pression of  them  is  rather  less  striking.  I  refer  to 
Dr.  Stanton's  Tke  Gospels  as  Historical  Documents, 
Part  I.  Dr.  Stanton's  book  is  planned  on  a  larger 
scale  than  Dr.  Drummond's  in  so  far  as  it  includes  all 
four  Gospels ;  but  as  yet  he  has  only  dealt  with  the 
external  evidence  bearing  upon  their  early  use.  An 
important  part  of  the  volume  is  naturally  that  devoted 
to  the  Fourth  Gospel.  Like  Dr.  Drummond,  Dr. 
Stanton  also  presents  a  marked  contrast  as  to  method 
with  the  group  of  continental  writers  that  we  have 
just  been  considering.  It  was  therefore  a  matter  of 
special  interest  that  his  book  should  be  reviewed  a 
few  months  after  its  appearance  by  Dr.  Schmiedel  in 
the  Hibbert  Journal  (ii.  607-12).  It  is  not  very 
surprising  that  Dr.  Stanton  was  moved  to  reply  to 
his  critic  in  the  next  number  (pp.  803-7).  There 
is  a  direct  antithesis  of  contrasted  and  competing 
principles. 

It  may  naturally  be   thought  that   I   am  a  biased 


38  /.    Survey  of  Recent  Literature 

judge  in  such  a  case ;  but  I  confess  that  it  seems  to 
me  that  the  advantage  is  very  much  on  the  side  of  my 
countryman.  He  shows  without  much  difficulty  that 
Dr.  Schmiedel  has  seriously  misrepresented  him.  In- 
deed one  might  say  that  the  critic's  representation  of 
views  and  arguments  was  not  so  much  derived  from 
the  book  he  was  reviewing  as  from  his  own  internal 
consciousness  of  what  might  be  expected  from  an 
apologist.  This,  however,  is  the  personal,  and  more 
ephemeral,  aspect  of  the  controversy.  It  is  of  more 
general  interest  to  note  the  critical  assumptions  made 
in  the  course  of  the  review.  The  writer  admits  that 
his  opponent  'not  unfrequently  gives  the  impression 
of  being  animated  by  the  sincere  resolve  to  maintain 
nothing  save  only  what  can  be  assumed  with  certainty.' 
'  With  certainty '  is  characteristic;  the  writer  attributes 
to  Dr.  Stanton  (in  this  case)  what  he  would  have 
aimed  at  doing  himself.  In  the  eyes  of  the  school  to 
which  Dr.  Schmiedel  belongs,  I  will  not  say  exactly 
that  all  the  data  of  which  they  approve  are  certain, 
but  they  are  treated  very  much  as  if  they  were  ;  in 
building  up  an  argument  upon  them,  possibilities 
easily  and  imperceptibly  glide  into  probabilities,  and 
probabilities  into  certainties.  Dr.  Stanton  disclaims 
the  idea  of  dealing  with  certainties ;  he  would  only 
profess  to  adduce  facts  on  a  nicely  graduated  scale 
of  probability,  which  by  their  cumulative  weight  went 
some  way  to  carry  conviction. 

'  Concerning  Barn.  iv.  14,  [Dr.  Stanton]  says 
(p-  33)  with  justice  that  this  is  our  earliest  instance 
of  the  citation  of  a  saying  of  Christ  as  "scripture." 


Recent  Reaction  39 

In  the  year  a.d.  130,  the  date  upon  which  he 
rightly  fixes  for  the  composition  of  the  Epistle 
of  Bar7iabas,  this  estimate  of  the  Gospels  would 
have  been  in  the  highest  degree  surprising,  since 
it  is  not  until  a.d.  170  that  the  next  examples 
of  such  an  estimate  make  their  appearance.'  Dr. 
Schmiedel  goes  on  (i)  to  have  recourse  to  the  ac- 
customed expedient  of  suggesting  that  Barnabas  is 
quoting,  not  from  the  words  of  the  Gospel  which 
are  identical,  but  from  a  passage  in  4  Ezra  which  is 
quite  different  ;  and  (2)  if  that  expedient  fails,  to 
represent  the  quotation  as  a  '  winged  word,'  though 
it  is  expressly  introduced  by  the  formula  *  it  is  written.' 
However,  it  is  not  of  either  of  these  points  that 
I  wish  to  speak,  but  rather  to  call  attention  to  what 
Dr.  Schmiedel  thinks  would  be  *  in  the  highest  degree 
surprising.'  Why  so  surprising  ?  What  substantial 
ground  have  we  for  expecting  anything  else  ?  In 
the  first  place  Dr.  Schmiedel  begins  by  exaggerating 
the  significance  of  the  phrase  *  it  is  written,'  as  though 
on  its  first  extant  occurrence  it  would  necessarily 
imply  full  canonical  authority.  And  then  he  goes 
on  to  lay  stress  upon  what  is  really  little  more  than 
the  absence  of  literature.  If  we  take  the  whole 
extant  Christian  literature  between  the  years  130  and 
170  A.D.,  it  would  not  fill  more  than  a  thin  octavo 
volume,  and  by  far  the  greater  part  of  that  is  taken 
up  with  external  controversy.  What  sort  of  argu- 
ment can  be  drawn  from  such  a  state  of  thinofs  as 
to  the  exact  estimate  which  Christians  formed  of 
their  own  sacred  books  }     No  valid  argument  can  be 


40  /.   Survey  of  Recent  Literature 

drawn  from  it  either  way,  and  it  is  far  better  simply 
to  confess  our  ignorance.  It  is  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  there  was  a  gradual  development  in  the  process 
by  which  the  Gospels  attained  to  the  position  that 
we  call  canonical ;  but  the  data  to  which  we  have 
access  do  not  allow  us  to  map  out  its  stages  with 
any  precision. 

It  seems  to  me  to  be  a  fundamental  defect  in  the 
reasoning  of  Dr.  Schmiedel  and  his  school  that  they 
fail  to  see  that  the  real  question  is,  not  simply,  What 
is  the  evidence  for  this  or  that  proposition }  but, 
What  is  the  relation  which  the  extant  evidence  bears 
to  the  whole  body  of  that  which  once  existed,  and  how 
far  can  we  trust  the  inferences  drawn  from  it  ? 

I  pass  over  some  quite  unwarrantable  assumptions 
which  Dr.  Schmiedel  makes  as  to  the  apologetic  point 
of  view  :  such  as  that,  '  if  there  can  be  shown  to  be 
resemblance  between  a  canonical  and  a  non-canonical 
writing,  the  former  is  uniformly  to  be  regarded  as  the 
earlier ' ;  and  that  '  Apocryphal  Gospels  would  not 
have  been  used  in  the  influential  circles  of  the 
Church.'  Apologists  would  lay  down  nothing  of  the 
kind,  though  in  a  certain  number  of  concrete  cases 
they  may  think  that  the  priority  of  a  canonical  to 
a  non-canonical  writing  does  not  need  arguing,  and 
though  they  may  also  think  that  in  some  particular 
case  the  evidence  for  the  use  of  an  Apocryphal  Gospel 
by  a  Church  writer  is  insufficient. 

Dr.  Schmiedel  easily  satisfies  himself  that  he  has 
refuted  an  argument  bearing  on  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
Professor   Stanton   had   rightly    maintained,    '  There 


Recent  Reaction 


41 


must  have  been  good  grounds  for  believing  that 
the  Fourth  Gospel  was  founded  upon  apostolic  testi- 
mony in  order  to  overcome  the  prejudice  that  would 
be  created  by  the  contrasts  between  it  and  the 
Synoptics.'  He  has  shown,  I  think,  in  his  reply, 
that  the  instances  alleged  against  this  are  not  rele- 
vant, and  also  that  the  part  played  by  the  two  ideas 
of  Apostolicity  and  Catholicity  in  the  forming  of  the 
Canon  are  not  quite  correctly  stated  by  his  opponent. 
But  even  if  they  had  been  as  stated  the  original  con- 
tention would  still  have  been  left  standing,  because 
agreement  with  previously  accepted  writings  was  part 
of  the  idea  of  Catholicity.  It  is  a  sound  argument 
to  say  that  a  work  so  independent  as  the  Fourth 
Gospel  must  have  come  with  good  credentials  to 
obtain  the  place  which  it  held. 

Lastly,  when  Dr.  Schmiedel  speaks  so  imposingly 
of  '  the  silence  of  the  entire  first  half  of  the  second 
century  in  regard  to  the  sojourn  of  the  Apostle  John 
in  Ephesus,  I  would  once  more  ask  him  what  this 
silence  amounts  to.  What  is  the  total  bulk  of  the 
literature  on  which  the  argument  is  based  ?  Is  it 
possible  to  draw  from  it  an  inference  of  any  value 
at  all  ^  ? 

*  The  two  books  of  Drs.  Drummond  and  Stanton  were  reviewed 
by  M.  Loisy  in  the  Revue  Critique,  1904,  pp.  422-4,  and  Dr.  Drum- 
mond's  by  Prof.  H.  J.  Holtzmann  in  Theol.  Literaturzeiiung,  1905, 
cols.  136-9.  Both  reviews  were  disappointing,  though  Dr.  Holtz- 
mann's  contains  the  usual  amount  of  painstaking  detail.  It  is 
natural  that  play  should  be  made  with  the  real  inconsistencies  of 
Dr.  Drummond's  position ;  but  his  weightier  arguments  are  in 
neither  case  directly  grappled  with. 


LECTURE   II 

CRITICAL    METHODS.       THE    OLDEST   SOLUTION    OF    THE 
PROBLEM    OF   THE   FOURTH    GOSPEL 

I.  i.  Defects  in  the  Methods  of  current  Criticism. 

It  is  now  rather  more  than  eight  years  since  Harnack 
wrote  the  famous  Preface  to  his  Chronologic  der  alt- 
christ lichen  Litter atur.  It  was  an  instance  of  the 
genial  insight  of  the  writer,  and  a  keen  diagnosis  of 
the  criticism  of  the  day. 

The  main  outhne  of  the  Preface  will  be  remembered. 
Looking  back  over  the  period  from  which  Science 
was  just  beginning  to  emerge,  the  writer  characterized 
it  as  one  in  which  all  the  early  Christian  literature 
including  the  New  Testament  had  been  treated  as 
a  tissue  of  illusions  and  falsifications.  That  time,  he 
went  on  to  say,  was  past.  For  Science  it  had  only 
been  an  episode,  during  which  much  had  been  learnt 
and  after  which  much  had  to  be  forgotten.  His  own 
researches,  Harnack  explained,  would  be  found  to  go 
in  a  reactionary  direction  even  beyond  the  middle 
position  of  current  criticism.  The  results  might  be 
summed  up  by  saying  that  the  oldest  literature  of  the 
Church,  in  its  main  points  and  in  most  of  its  details, 
from  the  point  of  view  of  literary  history,  was  vera- 
cious and  trustworthy.  In  the  whole  New  Testament 
there  was  probably  only  a  single  writing  that  could  be 
called  pseudonymous  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term, 


Defects  in  the  Methods  of  current  Criticism    43 

the  so-called  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter;  and,  apart  from 
the  Gnostic  fictions,  the  whole  number  of  pseudony- 
mous writings  down  to  Irenaeus  was  very  small,  and 
in  one  case  (the  Acts  of  Thccla)  the  production  of  such 
a  work  was  expressly  condemned.  In  like  manner 
the  amount  of  interpolation  was  also  far  less  than  had 
been  supposed  ;  and  the  tradition  relating  to  this  early 
period  might  in  the  main,  and  with  some  reservations, 
be  trusted. 

Baur  and  his  school  had  thought  themselves  com- 
pelled, in  order  to  give  an  intelligible  account  of  the 
rise  of  Christianity,  to  throw  over  both  the  statements 
in  the  writings  themselves  and  those  of  tradition  about 
them,  and  to  post-date  their  composition  by  several 
decades.  They  were  driven  to  do  this  by  mistaken 
premises.  Starting  with  the  assumption  that  all  these 
writings  were  composed  wuth  a  definite  purpose,  to 
commend  some  sectional  view  of  Christianity,  they 
were  constantly  on  the  watch  for  traces  of  that  pur- 
pose, and  they  found  them  in  the  most  unexpected 
places.  The  views  of  Baur  and  his  followers  had 
been  generally  given  up ;  but  the  tendencies  set  on 
foot  by  them  remained.  The  Christian  writings  were 
still  approached  in  an  attitude  of  suspicion  ;  they  were 
cross-examined  in  the  spirit  of  a  hostile  attorney  ;  or 
else  they  were  treated  after  the  manner  of  a  petit 
maitre,  fastening  upon  all  sorts  of  small  details,  and 
arguing  from  them  in  the  face  of  clear  and  decisive 
indications.  Baur  thought  that  everything  had  a 
motive,  and  an  interested  motive.  But,  whereas  he 
sought  for  the  motive  on  broad  lines,  his  more  recent 


44  //.    Critical  Methods 

successors  either  gave  themselves  up  to  the  search  for 
minor  incidental  motives,  or  for  interpolations  on  a 
large  scale,  or  else  they  gave  way  to  a  thorough-going 
scepticism  which  confused  together  probabilities  and 
improbabilities  as  though  they  were  all  the  same. 

Harnack  went  on  to  describe  the  results  of  the 
labours  of  the  last  two  decades  (1876-96)  as  con- 
stituting a  definite  '  return  to  tradition.'  This  return 
to  tradition  he  regarded  as  characteristic  of  the  period 
in  which  he  was  writing ;  indeed  he  looked  forward  to 
a  time  when  the  questions  of  literary  history  which 
had  excited  so  much  interest  would  do  so  no  longer, 
because  it  would  come  to  be  generally  understood  that 
the  early  Christian  traditions  were  in  the  main  right. 

This   Preface   of  Harnack's   attracted  considerable 

attention,  and  probably  nowhere  more  than  in  England. 

English  students  hailed  it  as  the  beginning  of  a  new 

epoch,  and  one  in  which  they  could  be  more  at  home. 

It  fell   in  with  certain  marked  characteristics  of  the 

English  mind.     Even  the  progressive  element  in  that 

mind  naturally  works  on   conservative  lines ;    it  has 

been  reluctant  to  break  away  from  the  past.      The 

very  advances  of  freedom,  so  steady  and  so  sure,  have 

not  been  revolutionary  ;  they  have  been  advances 

'  Of  freedom  slowly  broadening  down 
From  precedeet  to  precedent,' 

But  it  was  not  only  the  destructive  conclusions  of 
continental  criticism  with  which  dissatisfaction  was  felt, 
and  which  gave  an  apologetic  colour  to  much  English 
work.      The   methods   were   in  many  ways  not  less 


Defects  in  the  Methods  of  current  Criticism    45 

distasteful  than  the  conclusions.  Englishmen  felt, 
whether  they  said  so  or  not,  that  there  was  something 
wrong.  And  therefore,  when  a  scholar  of  Harnack's 
distinction  put  their  thoughts  into  words  and  pointed 
to  the  very  defects  of  which  they  seemed  to  be 
conscious,  their  hopes  were  raised  that  at  last  a 
movement  was  begun  which  they  could  follow  with 
sympathy,  and  in  which  they  might  perhaps  to  some 
extent  bear  a  part. 

When  I  take  upon  myself  to  speak  in  this  way  of 
'English  students,'  I  of  course  do  so  with  some  reserva- 
tions. I  have  in  mind  the  rather  considerable  majority 
of  the  theological  faculties  in  our  Universities,  and 
I  might  say  the  majority  of  the  teaching  staffs  of  all 
denominations  throughout  Great  Britain  ;  for  there 
are  excellent  relations,  and  a  great  amount  of  solidarity, 
among  British  teachers  of  Theology  in  all  the  churches. 
A  good  general  representation  of  the  average  views 
would  be  found  (e.  g.)  in  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the 
Bible,  No  doubt  there  is  also  the  other  type — the 
type  represented  by  E^icyclopaedia  Diblica.  There  are 
not  a  few  among  us  who  are  less  dissatisfied  with 
Continental  methods,  and  who  pursue  those  methods 
themselves  with  ability  and  independence.  And  be- 
yond these  there  are  very  many  more,  especially  among 
the  cultivated  and  interested  laity,  who  are  acquainted 
in  a  general  way  with  what  has  been  done  on  the 
Continent,  and  who  are  impressed  by  what  they  take 
to  be  the  results,  though  for  the  most  part  they  have 
not  time  to  test  the  processes.  I  say  advisedly  that 
this   class   is  impressed  by  what  it  conceives   to  be 


46  //.    Critical  Methods 

results,  because  I  imagine  that,  while  there  is  a  feeling 
that  Continental  scholars  are  freer  in  their  researches 
and  less  trammelled  than  our  own,  there  is  also  some 
reserve  owing  to  the  consciousness  that  the  results 
have  not  been  fully  tested.  To  this  extent  I  should 
say  that  the  intellectual  posture  of  this  class  was  one 
of  waiting — serious  and  interested  waiting — rather 
than  of  complete  committal  either  to  one  side  or  to 
the  other. 

Since  my  visit  to  America  I  seem  to  be  better 
able  to  speak  of  the  situation  there,  though  closer 
acquaintance  did  but  in  the  main  confirm  and  define 
the  opinion  that  I  had  previously  formed.  There 
are  several  differences  between  the  conditions  in 
the  two  countries.  On  the  other  side  of  the 
Atlantic  there  are  probably  greater  inequalities  of 
theological  instructedness.  They  have  a  greater 
number  of  Universities  and  Seminaries,  in  which 
the  standard  varies  more  than  it  does  with  us.  And 
while  on  the  one  hand  general  culture  and  that  kind 
of  vague  knowledge  of  the  nature  and  tendencies 
of  criticism  which  goes  with  general  culture  is  more 
widely  diffused  in  these  islands,  on  the  other  hand 
I  should  be  inclined  to  think  that  a  real  first-hand 
knowledge  of  critical  work  is  more  often  to  be  found 
there  than  it  is  here.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that 
a  large  proportion  of  the  ablest  professors  and  teachers 
have  been  themselves  trained  in  Germany.  And  yet, 
in  spite  of  these  differences  and  inequalities,  there  is 
a  general  tendency,  which  seemed  to  me  to  embrace 
the  whole  nation. 


Defects  in  the  Methods  of  current  Criticism    47 

It  was  summed  up  in  few  words  by  one  of  the 
Methodist  Bishops  (it  will  be  remembered  that  the 
Episcopalian  Methodists  are  strong  in  America)  with 
whom  I  had  some  conversation.  He  had,  I  believe, 
been  secretary  of  some  Board  of  Religious  Education, 
and  spoke  with  wide  knowledge.  I  should  be  afraid 
to  say  how  many  students  had  passed  through  his 
hands.  And,  speaking  of  these  students,  he  said  that 
their  general  attitude  was  this :  *  They  want  to  keep 
their  faith  ;  and  yet  they  also  want  to  see  the  realities 
of  things.' 

The  same  description  would,  I  believe,  fit  the  teachers 
and  professors  as  well  as  the  students,  including  those 
trained  in  Germany.  They  too  want  to  keep  their 
faith,  and  to  help  their  students  to  keep  their  faith. 
As  compared  with  the  state  of  things  in  Germany, 
there  is  a  more  general  and  sustained  effort  to  make 
their  teaching  positive  and  constructive ;  and  this 
constructive  teaching  takes,  I  suspect,  in  most  cases 
very  similar  lines — I  should  describe  it  as  in  the  main 
Ritschlianism  of  the  Right.  At  the  same  time,  they 
too  want  to  see  the  reality  of  things ;  in  other  words, 
they  want  to  teach  by  strictly  scientific  methods.  And 
the  only  further  remark  that  I  should  have  to  make 
would  be  that  they  are  perhaps  a  little  inclined — and 
it  naturally  could  not  be  otherwise — to  look  at  these 
methods  through  German  spectacles. 

Now  I  would  not  hesitate  to  carry  this  generalization 
still  further.  We,  in  this  country,  have  probably  a 
greater  number  of  cross  currents ;  there  is  a  greater 
number  of  media  that  stand  between  the  individual 


48  //.    Critical  Methods 

and  his  ultimate  aims  and  wishes,  in  the  shape  of 
loyalties  to  this  or  that  church  or  party.  And  yet 
I  think  that,  broadly  speaking,  we  should  not  be  wrong 
in  summing  up  what  is  really  at  the  bottom  of  the 
minds  and  hearts  of  the  whole  Anglo-Saxon  race  in 
the  same  words  :  *  They  want  to  keep  their  faith  ;  and 
yet  they  also  want  to  see  the  realities  of  things.' 

It  is  the  equilibrium  of  these  two  propositions  that 
is  most  characteristic.  I  fully  believe  that  motives  of 
the  same  kind  are  present  among  the  Germans  as  well 
as  ourselves.  I  could  easily  name  a  number  of  German 
professors  who,  I  feel  sure,  are  as  anxious  to  keep  their 
faith  as  we  are.  At  the  head  of  the  list  I  should  put 
Harnack  himself,  whose  views  have  been  so  much 
discussed  in  this  country.  There  is,  however,  a  greater 
diversity  of  attitude  among  the  professorial  body  as 
a  whole.  And  so  far  as  they  were  agreed — I  am 
speaking  especially  of  the  widespread  liberal  branch — 
they  would,  I  think,  all  invert  the  order  of  the  two 
propositions:  they  would  give  precedence  to  the  desire 
to  get  at  realities ;  and  they  would  identify  this  getting 
at  realities  with  the  use  of  scientific  method.  The 
reason  is  that  in  Germany,  more  than  elsewhere,  the 
prevalent  standards  of  judgement  are  essentially  aca- 
demic. The  Universities  give  the  lead  and  set  the  tone 
for  the  whole  nation ;  and  the  Universities  have  now 
been  accustomed  for  many  generations  to  an  atmo- 
sphere of  free  thought. 

Now  it  is  far  from  my  intention  to  undervalue,  either 
the  use  of  scientific  method  in  general,  or  German 
science  in  particular.     I  have  the  highest  opinion  of 


Defects  in  the  Methods  of  current  Criticism    49 

both.  By  far  the  greater  part  of  the  advance  that  has 
been  made  in  Theology — and  I  believe  that  a  great 
advance  has  been  made  in  our  own  country  as  well  as 
elsewhere — I  would  again  appeal  to  Hastings'  Diction- 
ary as  representing  a  sort  of  average — has  been  due 
to  the  stricter  application  of  science  ;  and  a  great  part 
of  this  has  been  German  science.  Honour  must  be 
given  where  honour  is  due.  We  must  not  hold  back 
the  full  recognition  that  at  the  present  time  Germany 
holds  the  first  place  in  Science,  and  that  its  output  of 
scientific  work  is  perhaps  as  great  as  that  of  all  the 
rest  of  the  world  besides.  I  am  not  sure  whether  this 
is  an  exaggeration,  but  I  hardly  think  it  is. 

But  in  all  the  more  tentative  forms  of  science,  such 
as  philosophy,  history,  and  theology,  there  is,  or  at 
least  has  been  so  far,  a  double  element,  one  that  is 
stable  and  permanent,  and  another  that  is  more  or  less 
local  and  ephemeral. 

If  I  proceed  to  offer  some  criticisms  upon  German 
critical  methods,  I  am  perfectly  well  aware  that  the 
Germans  in  turn  would  have  somethino-  to  criticize  in 

o 

ours.  At  the  present  day  discussion  is  not  limited  to 
any  one  country,  but  is  international.  It  is  by  scholars 
of  different  race  and  training  comparing  notes  to- 
gether that  mistakes  are  corrected,  methods  gradually 
perfected,  and  results  established.  I  shall  not  hesitate 
therefore  to  point  out  where  it  seems  to  me  that 
German  methods  have  gone  wrong.  And  I  feel  that 
I  can  do  this  the  more  freely  when  a  scholar  of 
Harnack's  high  standing  has  set  the  example.  The 
faults  that  we  seem  to  have  noticed  in  German  criti- 


50  //.    Critical  Methods 

cism  are  very  much  those  which  he  has  indicated :  it 
has  been  too  academic,  too  doctrinaire,  too  artificial, 
too  much  made  in  the  study  and  too  Httle  checked  by 
observation  of  the  facts  of  daily  life.  The  very  ex- 
cellences of  the  German  mind  have  in  some  ways 
contributed  to  the  formation  of  wrong  standards  of 
judgement.  More  than  other  people  the  Germans 
have  the  power  of  sustained  abstract  thought,  of 
thoroughness  in  mustering  and  reviewing  all  the 
elements  of  a  problem,  of  thinking  a  problem  out  in 
such  a  way  as  not  to  leave  gaps  and  inconsistencies. 
Hence  they  are  too  ready  to  assume  that  all  the  rest 
of  the  world  will  do  the  same,  that  if  an  important 
piece  of  evidence  is  omitted  in  an  argument  it  can 
only  be  because  it  was  not  known,  that  carelessness 
and  oversights  and  inconsistencies  are  things  that  need 
not  be  reckoned  with.  And  there  is  also  too  great 
a  tendency  to  argue  as  though  men  were  all  made 
upon  one  pattern.  There  is  a  want  of  elasticity  of 
conception.  And,  to  sum  up  many  points  in  one, 
there  is  a  great  tendency  to  purism  or  over-strictness 
in  the  wrong  place,  and  to  over-laxity  also  in  the 
wrong  place,  to  strain  out  the  gnat  and  swallow  the 
camel. 

What  one  desiderates  most  is  greater  simplicity, 
greater  readiness  to  believe  that  as  a  rule,  in  ancient 
times  as  well  as  modern,  people  meant  what  they  said 
and  said  what  they  meant,  and  that  more  often  than 
not  they  had  some  substantial  reason  for  saying  it. 


51 


ii.    Instances  in  which  Criticism  has  corrected  itself. 

These  are  not  merely  a  priori  reflections,  but  they 
are  based  upon  experience  of  the  actual  course  that 
criticism  has  taken.  By  this  time  criticism  has  a  con- 
siderable history  behind  it.  It  has  corrected  some  of 
its  mistakes,  and  is  able  to  look  back  upon  the  course 
by  which  it  came  to  make  them.  In  this  way  it  should 
learn  some  wholesome  lessons. 

I  will  take  three  rather  conspicuous  examples  in 
which  criticism  has  at  first  gone  wrong  and  has  after- 
wards come  to  set  itself  right,  in  the  hope  that  they 
may  teach  us  what  to  avoid  in  future.  I  imagine 
that  they  may  be  found  to  throw  some  side-light 
upon  the  particular  problem  of  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

The  first  example  that  I  will  take  shall  be  from 
the  criticism  of  the  Ignatian  Epistles.  I  may  assume 
that  the  seven  Epistles  are  now  generally  allowed  to 
be  genuine,  and  written  by  Ignatius,  bishop  of  Antioch, 
on  his  way  to  martyrdom  at  Rome  sometime  before 
the  end  of  the  reign  of  Trajan  (i.  e.  before  117).  This 
result  is  due  especially  to  the  labours  of  two  scholars, 
Zahn  and  Lightfoot.  It  is  instructive  to  note  with 
what  kind  of  argument  they  had  to  contend. 

Both  in  their  day  had  to  stem  a  formidable  current 
of  opinion.  Bishop  Lightfoot  wrote  in  the  Preface  to 
his  great  work  dated  *  St.  Peter's  day,  1885  '• 

*  We  have  been  told  more  than  once  that  "  all 
impartial  critics  "  have  condemned  the  Ignatian  Epi- 
stles as  spurious.  But  this  moral  intimidation  is 
unworthy  of  the  eminent  writers  who  have  sometimes 

E  2 


52  //.    Critical  Methods 

indulged  in  it,  and  will  certainly  not  be  permitted 
to  foreclose  the  investigation.  If  the  ecclesiastical 
terrorism  of  past  ages  has  lost  its  power,  we  shall, 
in  the  interests  of  truth,  be  justly  jealous  of  allowing 
an  academic  terrorism  to  usurp  its  place.' 

I  should  not  find  it  difficult  to  produce  parallels  to 
this  kind  of  intimidation  in  the  case  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel.  To  look  back  in  face  of  them  upon  the  issue 
of  the  Ignatian  controversy  is  consoling. 

Much  was  said  in  the  course  of  the  controversy 
about  certain  features  of  style  and  character  as  unworthy 
of  an  Apostolic  father.  It  was  enough  to  answer  with 
Bishop  Lightfoot  that  '  objections  of  this  class  rest  for 
the  most  part  on  the  assumption  that  an  Apostolic 
father  must  be  a  person  of  ideal  perfections  intellectu- 
ally as  well  as  morally — an  assumption  which  has  only 
to  be  named  in  order  to  be  refuted  ^' 

It  is  true  that  the  letters  contained  exaggerated 
language  of  humility,  and  also  an  exaggerated  eager- 
ness for  martyrdom.  Beside  these  general  features, 
there  were  a  good  many  strange  and  crude  expressions 
of  other  kinds.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  it  did  not 
in  the  least  follow  that  such  expressions  could  not 
have  been  used  by  Ignatius.  But  if  the  critics  had 
been  willing  to  study  the  letters  a  little  deeper  and 
with  a  little  more  sympathy,  they  might  have  found 
reason  to  change  their  estimate  even  of  these  acknow- 
ledged flaws. 

In  dealing  with  Ignatius  it  is  always  important  to 
remember  that  we  have  to  do  with  a  Syrian  and  not 

*  Ignatius,  i.  405. 


Criticism  corrected  by  itself  53 

a  Greek.  Certainly  the  language  that  he  wrote  was 
not  in  his  hand  a. pliant  instrument.  It  always  cost 
him  a  struggle  to  express  his  thought ;  and  the  expres- 
sion is  very  often  far  from  perfect.  The  figure  of  the 
writer  that  one  pictures  to  oneself  is  rugged,  shaggy 
(if  one  may  use  the  word),  uncouth ;  and  yet  there 
is  a  virile,  nervous  strength  about  his  language  which 
is  at  times  very  impressive.  And  even  his  extrava- 
gances differ  in  this  from  many  like  extravagances, 
that  they  are  not  in  the  least  insincere.  For  instance, 
if  we  read  through  the  letter  to  Polycarp,  we  shall 
see  in  it  a  really  great  personality.  And  Ignatius  had 
a  very  considerable  power  of  thought  as  well  as  of 
character.  Outside  the  New  Testament,  he  is  the 
first  great  Christian  thinker ;  and  he  is  one  who  left 
a  deep  mark  on  all  subsequent  thinking. 

I  have  little  doubt  that  the  strong  expressions  of 
humility  that  are  found  from  time  to  time  in  Ignatius 
are  wrung  from  him  by  the  recollection  of  the  life  that 
he  led  before  he  became  a  Christian.  They  are  doubt- 
less suggested  by  St.  Paul,  and  they  spring  from 
a  feeling  not  less  intense  than  his. 

The  humility  of  St.  John  is  a  different  matter. 
But  as  very  shallow  and  obtuse  criticisms  are  some- 
times passed  upon  it,  the  Ignatian  parallel  may  serve 
as  a  wholesome  warning.  I  shall  have  occasion  to 
return  to  this  point  later. 

The  main  arguments  against  the  Ignatian  author- 
ship of  the  letters  were  drawn  from  the  seemingly 
advanced  condition  of  things  which  they  implied  in  the 
way  of  heretical  teaching  on  the  one  hand,  and  church 


54  IJ^'    Critical  Methods 

organization  on  the  other.  The  objections  on  these 
grounds  have  been  quite  cleared  up ;  and  now  the 
letters  supply  some  of  the  most  important  data  that 
the  historian  has  to  go  upon. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  Bishop  Lightfoot  began 
by  converting  himself  before  he  converted  others.  He 
had  been  inclined  to  think  at  one  time  that  the  shorter 
Syriac  version  represented  the  true  Ignatius.  He 
tell  us  himself  how  he  came  to  give  up  this  opinion. 
He  says : 

'  I  found  that  to  maintain  the  priority  of  the 
Curetonian  letters  I  was  obliged  from  time  to  time 
to  ascribe  to  the  supposed  Ignatian  forger  feats  of 
ingenuity,  knowledge,  intuition,  skill,  and  self-restraint, 
which  transcended  all  bounds  of  probability '  (Preface 
to  the  First  Edition). 

This  is  another  bit  of  experience  that  it  may  be 
worth  while  to  bear  in  mind. 

My  second  example  is  perhaps  in  this  sense  not 
quite  so  clear  a  case,  that  there  is  not  as  yet  as  com- 
plete a  consensus  in  regard  to  it  as  there  is  in  regard 
to  the  Ignatian  Letters.  It  is  taken  from  the  discus- 
sions which  have  been  going  on  at  various  times  in 
the  last  twenty-five  years  as  to  the  genuineness  of  the 
treatise  De  Vita  Co7itemplativa  which  has  come  down 
to  us  among  the  works  of  Philo. 

A  marked  impression  was  made  on  the  side  of  the 
attack  by  a  monograph  by  Lucius,  Die  Therapeiiten  u. 
ihre  Stellungi7i  d,  Gesch.  der  Askese,  published  in  1879. 
This,  together  with  the   acceptance  at   least   of  the 


Criticism  corrected  by  itself  55 

negative  part  of  its  result  by  Schiirer,  inaugurated 
a  period  during  which  opinion  was  on  the  whole 
rather  unfavourable  to  the  treatise.  A  reaction  beean 
with  two  articles  by  Massebieau  in  1888,  followed  by 
the  important  and  valuable  work  of  Mr.  F.  C.  Cony- 
h^diYG,  Pkito  adout  tJie  Contemplative  Life,  Oxford,  1895. 
The  success  of  this  defence  may  be  regarded  as 
clenched  by  the  accession  of  such  excellent  and  impar- 
tial authorities  as  Cohn  and  Wendland,  who  are  bring- 
ing out  the  great  new  edition  of  Philo,  and  of  Dr. 
James  Drummond.  It  is  true  that  Schiirer  reviewed 
Mr.  Conybeare  in  an  adverse  sense  so  far  as  his  main 
conclusion  was  concerned,  and  that  he  still  maintains 
his  opinion  in  the  third  edition  of  his  Geschichte  d.  Jiidi- 
scke?t  Volkes  (1898);  but  I  must  needs  think  that  his 
arguments  were  satisfactorily  and  decisively  answered 
by  Dr.  Drummond  in  the  Jewish  Quarterly  Review 
for  1896. 

One  or  two  points  in  this  reply  of  Dr.  Drummond 
have  a  general  bearing,  relevant  to  our  present  subject. 

Lucius  had  maintained  that  the  treatise  was  of 
Christian  origin,  and  that  it  was  composed  not  long 
before  the  time  of  its  first  mention  by  Eusebius.  The 
history  of  the  text  is  opposed  to  this ;  and  Dr.  Drum- 
mond is  quite  right  in  saying  *  the  argument  seems 
valid  that  Eusebius  did  not  make  his  extracts  from 
a  work  which  had  been  recently  sprung  upon  the 
market,  but  from  one  which  had  already  undergone 
a  long  process  of  transcription.'  I  may  point  to  Dr. 
Schmiedel's  article  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Biblica  as  one 
of  many  examples  of  reasoning  similar  to  that  of  Lucius 


56  //.    Critical  Methods 

in  regard  to  the  Fourth  Gospel.  It  is  a  common 
thing  among  critics  to  think  it  unnecessary  to  allow 
any  but  the  smallest  interval  between  the  first  pro- 
duction of  a  book  and  the  date  of  its  first  mention  in 
the  literature  that  happens  to  be  extant.  I  would  not 
lay  down  an  absolute  rule.  Circumstances  vary  in 
different  cases.  But  I  would  contend  that  in  any  case 
they  need  careful  consideration,  and  that  assumptions 
like  those  of  Lucius  and  Schmiedel  are  highly  pre- 
carious. 

The  next  point  I  would  notice  is  the  argument  from 
identity  of  thought  and  style.  One  of  the  striking 
features  in  Mr.  Conybeare's  book  was  the  vast  accu- 
mulation of  parallels  both  in  thought  and  expression 
between  the  De  Vita  Contemplativa  and  the  certainly 
genuine  works  of  Philo.  Dr.  Schiirer  thinks  that  this 
might  be  due  to  imitation.  On  that  head  I  should 
like  to  quote  Dr.  Drummond  : 

'  The  purely  literary  evidence  will  affect  different 
men  differently.  To  those  who  have  no  difficulty  in 
attributing  to  the  forger  a  boundless  power  of  refined 
imitation  it  will  carry  little  weight.  To  others  who 
act  upon  the  proverb,  ex  pede  Hercukm,  and  believe 
that  successful  forgery  in  the  name  of  an  author,  if 
not  of  high  genius,  at  least  of  unusual  ability  and 
distinguished  style,  is  an  exceedingly  difficult  art,  this 
line  of  evidence  will  come  with  almost  overwhelming 
force.  It  is  easy  enough  to  imitate  tricks  of  style,  or 
to  borrow  some  peculiarities  of  phrase ;  but  to  write 
in  a  required  style,  without  betraying  any  signs  of 
imitation  ;  to  introduce  perpetual  variation  into  sen- 
tences which  are  nevertheless  characteristic ;  to  have 
shades  of  thought  and  suggestion,  which  remind  one 
of  what  has  been  said  elsewhere,  and  nevertheless  are 


Criticism  corrected  by  itself  57 

delicately  modified,  and  pass  easily  into  another  sub- 
ject ;  in  a  word,  to  preserve  the  whole  flavour  of 
a  writer's  composition  in  a  treatise  which  has  a  theme 
of  its  own,  and  follows  its  own  independent  develop- 
ment, may  well  seem  beyond  the  reach  of  the  forger, 
and  must  be  held  to  guarantee  the  genuineness  of  a 
work,  unless  very  weighty  arguments  can  be  advanced 
on  the  other  side.' 

This  paragraph  seems  to  be  very  much  in  point 
for  those  who,  like  Schmiedel,  H.  J.  Holtzmann  and 
Professor  Bacon,  would  distinguish  the  author  of  the 
First  Epistle  of  St.  John  from  the  author  of  the 
Gospel. 

On  this  point  it  is  also  worth  while  to  consider 
Dr.  Drummond's  replies  to  the  inconsistencies  alleged 
to  exist  between  particular  details  in  the  De  Vita 
Contemplativa  and  the  other  Philonic  writings.  There 
is  always  a  tendency  in  the  critical  school  to  make  too 
much  of  these  little  pj-itna  facie  differences,  which 
generally  shrink  a  good  deal  on  closer  examination. 

My  last  example  shall  be  taken  from  the  Vita 
Antonii,  ascribed  to,  and  now  generally  believed  to 
be  a  genuine  work  of,  St.  Athanasius.  The  Vila 
Antonii  holds  an  important  place  in  the  literature 
of  the  beginnings  of  Monasticism.  As  such  it  was 
involved  in  the  wholesale  scepticism  on  that  subject 
which  was  pushed  to  its  furthest  limits  by  the  late 
Professor  Weingarten  in  the  seventies  and  eighties. 
How  complete  the  reaction  has  been  may  be  seen 
in  the  recent  edition  of  the  Historia  Laiisiaca  by 
Dom  Cuthbert  Butler.     Among  Weingarten's  converts 


58  //.    Critical  Methods 

was  our  English  scholar,  Professor  Gwatkin ;  and 
I  do  not  think  that  anything  could  speak  more  elo- 
quently than  just  to  transcribe  the  list  of  objections 
brought  against  the  Vita  Antoniihy  Professor  Gwatkin 
in  his  Studies  of  Arianism  (Cambridge,  1882).  I  pro- 
ceed to  give  the  more  important  of  them  in  an 
abridged  form  : 

*  In  the  rest  of  the  works  of  Athanasius  there  is  no 
trace  of  Antony's  existence.  Considering  the  grandeur 
of  the  saint's  position,  and  his  intimate  relations  with 
the  bishop  of  Alexandria,  this  fact  alone  should  be 
decisive.' 

Observe  the  argument  from  silence,  which  is  enlarged 
upon  in  the  remainder  of  the  paragraph. 

1.  The  treatise  is  addressed  to  the  monks  of  the 
West,  whereas  *  monasticism  was  unknown  in  Europe 
in  the  reign  of  Valentinian,  and  at  Rome  in  particular 
when  Jerome  went  into  the  East  in  373  ;  and  at  Milan 
it  had  only  lately  been  introduced  by  Ambrose  at  the 
time  of  Augustine's  visit  in  385.' 

2.  'Apart  from  its  numerous  miracles,  the  general 
tone  of  the  Vita  is  unhistorical.  It  is  a  perfect 
romance  of  the  desert,  without  a  trace  of  human 
sinfulness  to  mar  its  beauty.  The  saint  is  an  idealized 
ascetic  hero,  the  mo7is  Antonii  a  paradise  of  peaceful 
holiness.  We  cannot  pass  from  the  Scriptores  Erotici 
to  the  Vita  Antonii  without  noticingr  the  same  atmo- 
sphere  of  unreality  in  both.  From  Athanasius  there 
is  all  the  difference  of  the  novel  writer  from  the  orator 
— of  the  Cyropaedia  from  the  de  Corona' 

3.  'Though  Athanasius  had  ample  room  for  miracles 
in  the  adventures  of  his  long  life,  he  never  records 
anything  of  the  sort.  .  .  .  But  miracles,  often  of  the 
most  puerile  description,  are  the  staple  of  the  Vita 
Antonii,  and  some  of  them  are  said  to  have  been  done 
before  the  eyes  of  Athanasius  himself,  who  could  not 


Criticism  corrected  by  itself  59 

have  omitted  all  reference  to  them  in  the  writings  of 
his  exile.' 

Again,  the  argument  from  silence. 

4.  '  Antony  is  represented  as  an  illiterate  Copt, 
dependent  on  memory  even  for  his  knowledge  of 
Scripture.'  Yet  he  alludes  to  Plato,  Plotinus,  &c.,  and 
in  general  reasons  like  a  learned  philosopher. 

5.  'The  Vita  Anto7iii  has  coincidences  with  Atha- 
nasius  in  language  and  doctrine,  as  we  should  expect 
in  any  professed  work  of  his.  .  .  .  But  the  divergences 
are  serious '  .  .  . 

6.  '  It  is  implied  throughout  the  Vita  Antonii  that 
the  monks  were  extremely  numerous  throughout  the 
East  during  Antony's  lifetime.  Now  there  were 
monks  in  Egypt,  monks  of  Serapis,  long  before ; 
but  Christian  monks  there  were  none'  {Studies  of 
Ariaiiism,  pp.   100-2). 

Now  I  am  not  for  a  moment  going  to  disparage 
this  display  of  learning.  It  is  very  clever ;  it  is  very 
scholarly :  in  the  state  of  knowledge  when  it  was 
written  it  was  at  least  very  excusable  in  its  state- 
ments. Altogether  it  was  as  brilliant  a  piece  of 
criticism  as  one  would  wish  to  see.  To  this  day 
the  objections  read  quite  formidably.  And  yet  the 
inference  drawn  from  them  is  pretty  certainly  wrong  ; 
indeed  the  whole  array  is  little  more  than  an  impressive 
bugbear. 

With  such  warnings  from  the  past  before  our  eyes, 
I  think  we  should  be  inclined  to  scrutinize  rather 
closely  arguments  of  a  like  kind  when  they  meet  us  in 
the  course  of  our  present  investigation. 


6o  //.    Critical  Methods 

iii.  Examples  of  Mistaken  Method  as  applied  to 
the  Fourth  Gospel. 

At  this  point  we  may  go  back  to  Harnack's  Preface. 
And  here  I  cannot  help  expressing  my  regret  that  it 
has  not  had  more  of  the  influence  that  it  deserved  to 
have,  both  in  the  country  of  its  author  and  elsewhere. 
I  am  even  tempted  to  go  a  little  further,  and  express 
my  regret  that  it  has  not  had  more  influence  upon  the 
author  himself.  I  will  henceforward  confine  myself 
more  strictly  to  the  Fourth  Gospel.  And  it  seems  to 
me  that,  in  his  incidental  treatment  of  this,  Harnack 
has  more  than  once  forgotten  his  own  precepts. 

He  expends  endless  ingenuity  in  trying  to  prove 
that  there  was  a  confusion,  in  the  minds  of  the 
Christian  writers  of  the  second  century,  between  the 
Apostle  St.  John  and  a  certain  'Presbyter'  of  the  same 
name,  who  really  lived,  as  the  Apostle  was  supposed 
to  have  lived,  at  Ephesus  in  the  Roman  province  of 
Asia.  An  important  difficulty  in  the  way  of  this  proof 
is  the  explicit  testimony  of  Irenaeus.  To  meet  this 
difficulty,  the  attempt  is  made  to  show  that  Irenaeus 
derived  all  his  knowledge,  or  supposed  knowledge, 
about  St.  John  and  his  surroundings  from  two  sources, 
a  very  brief  intercourse  in  early  youth  with  Polycarp, 
bishop  of  Smyrna,  and  the  book  of  Papias,  called 
Expositions  of  the  Oracles  of  the  Lord.  It  is  like 
Nero  wishing  that  Rome  had  one  neck,  in  order  that 
it  might  be  cut  at  a  single  stroke.  By  reducing  the 
channels  through  which  Irenaeus  received  his  know- 
ledge to  these  two,  it  became  more  possible  that  if 


Examples  of  Mistaken  Method  6i 

they  happened  in  any  way  to  lend  themselves  to  the 
confusion,  that  confusion  should  really  take  hold  of  his 
mind  and  express  itself  in  his  writings.  The  learning 
and  ingenuity  and  skill  displayed  are  admirable.  But 
how  futile,  from  the  very  first,  to  suppose  that  all  the 
information  Irenaeus  possessed  about  the  greatest 
leader  of  the  Church  of  his  own  home  came  only 
through  these  two  channels  and  no  others;  indeed, 
that  he  was  like  the  princess  in  the  fairy  tale,  shut  up 
in  a  tower  and  cut  off  from  all  communication  with 
the  outer  world.  We  know  that  two  at  least  of  his 
companions  in  the  Gallic  churches  of  Vienne  and 
Lyons  came  from  the  same  region  as  himself.  It  is 
commonly  supposed  that  these  churches  had  as  a 
nucleus  a  little  colony  from  Asia  Minor.  In  his 
Fourth  Book  Irenaeus  often  refers  to  a  certain 
Presbyter,  whom  Harnack  rightly  shows  to  have  been 
not  a  direct  hearer  of  the  Apostles,  but  at  one  degree 
removed  from  them,  a  disciple  of  those  who  had  heard 
from  the  Apostles.  It  is  natural,  with  Lightfoot,  to 
identify  this  Presbyter  with  Pothinus,  Irenaeus'  own 
predecessor  in  his  see,  who  had  passed  the  age  of 
ninety  when  he  died  in  the  persecution  of  the  year 
177.  In  any  case,  Pothinus  must  have  been  a  store- 
house of  traditions  and  memories,  to  which  Irenaeus 
would  have  constant  access.  We  know  also  that  after 
the  persecution  Irenaeus  was  in  Rome ;  and  there  is 
some  reason  to  think  that  he  had  resided  there  more 
than  twenty  years  before  \     This  was  another  great 

^  See  the  story  in  the  Moscow  MS.  of  the  Martyrium  Polycarpi 


62  //.    Critical  Methods 

centre  with  which  he  was  familiar,  and  to  which  news 
and  traditions  of  the  past  came  streaming  in  from 
every  quarter  of  the  Christian  world.  And  yet  we 
are  asked  to  believe  that  Irenaeus  was  the  victim  of 
a  confusion  that  in  any  number  of  ways  might  have 
been  corrected.  As  Dr.  Drummond  well  says,  '  Critics 
speak  of  Irenaeus  as  though  he  had  fallen  out  of  the 
moon,  paid  two  or  three  visits  to  Polycarp's  lecture- 
room,  and  never  known  any  one  else.  In  fact,  he 
must  have  known  all  sorts  of  men,  of  all  ages,  both  in 
the  East  and  the  West,  and  among  others  his  venerable 
predecessor  Pothinus,  who  was  upwards  of  ninety  at 
the  time  of  his  death.  He  must  have  had  numerous 
links  with  the  early  part  of  the  century  ^.' 
Again  the  same  writer  says : 

'  The  testimonies  of  Irenaeus,  of  Polycrates,  and  of 
Clement  are  those  on  which  we  must  mainly  rely.  In 
judging  of  the  collective  force  of  the  evidence,  we  must 
not  forget  that  the  second  century  was  a  literary  age. 
The  churches  freely  communicated  with  one  another 
by  letters,  and  there  was  an  abundant  theological 
literature  of  which  only  a  few  fragments  have  survived. 
I  see  no  reason  why  the  churches  of  Asia  should  not 
have  had  as  well-grounded  a  certainty  that  John  had 
been  once  among  them  as  we  have  that  Goldsmith 
was  once  in  London  2.' 

To  deal  with  all  this  body  of  evidence  as  Harnack 
deals  with  it  is  very  like  '  arguing  on  the  strength  of 

(Lightfoot,  Ignatius^  iii.  402),  which  professes  to  be  taken  from  'the 
writings  of  Irenaeus.' 

^  Character  and  Authorship^  p.  348. 

'  Ibid.  p.  213. 


Examples  of  Mistaken  Method  63 

a  few  particulars   in  the  face   of  clear  and   decisive 
indications  ^' 

Here  is  another  instance  of  the  very  thing  that 
Harnack  himself  complained  of.  He  has  made  up 
his  mind  that  chap  xxi  of  the  Gospel  could  not  have 
been  written  until  after  the  death  of  the  author.  But 
in  ver.  24  the  editors  of  the  Gospel  say  expressly  that 
the  Apostle  who  figures  so  conspicuously  in  it  was  the 
author  of  the  whole  book  (*  this  is  the  disciple  who 
beareth  witness  of  these  things,  and  wrote  these 
things').  This,  according  to  Harnack,  only  convicts 
them  of  a  deliberate  untruth,  contradicted  by  the  verses 
immediately  preceding.  If  we  must  needs  accuse  the 
unfortunate  editors  of  falsification,  we  might  at  least 
give  them  credit  for  the  sense  to  take  care  that  their 
falsehood  was  not  exposed  by  their  own  words,  and 
almost  (as  it  were)  in  the  same  breath.  But  the  fact 
is  that  the  premiss,  from  which  Harnack  argues,  is 
purely  gratuitous,  as  I  hope  to  show  in  the  next 
lecture. 

Perhaps  it  is  the  same  persons,  the  editors  of  the 
Gospel — in  any  case  it  is  the  Presbyters  who  were 
closely  connected  with  them — who  are  charged  with 
another  piece  of  dishonesty.  Harnack  sees  that  mere 
accident  will  not  account  for  the  supposed  confusion 
of  John  the  Presbyter  with  John  the  Apostle.  He 
therefore  does  not  shrink  from  imputing  deliberate 
fraud. 

'  The  legend  purposely  set  on  foot  that  the  author  of 
the  Gospel  was  the  son  of  Zebedee,  Slc."^  ' 

^  Chronologic^  p.  ix.  '  3id.  p.  678. 


64  //.    Critical  Methods 

'  But  Papias,  through  the  oral  traditions  about  which 
he  took  so  much  trouble,  already  stood  under  the 
influence  of  Presbyters,  of  whom  sova^  perhaps  purposely 
started  the  legend  that  the  Presbyter  John  was  the 
Apostle  ^' 

'  The  John  who  had  the  encounter  with  Cerinthus, 
after  what  has  been  said  can  only  be  the  Presbyter. 
But  in  the  confusion,  "  the  unconscious "  alone  can 
hardly  have  been  involved  ^' 

The  dishonesty  went  beyond  the  confusion  of  the 
two  persons.  It  is  also  seen  in  the  definite  ascription 
of  the  Gospel  to  the  Apostle. 

'  The  twenty-fourth  verse  of  the  twenty-first  chapter 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  about  which  we  have  spoken, 
will  always  remain  a  strong  indication  of  the  fact  that 
in  Ephesus  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  deliberately  put 
out  after  the  death  of  its  author  as  a  work  of  the 
Apostle,  and  so  that  the  Apostle  and  the  Presbyter 
were  deliberately  identified,  as  Philip  the  Evangelist 
was  made  to  change  places  with  Philip  the  Apostle  ^.' 

Facilis  descensus.  When  once  we  begin  imputing 
fraudulent  actions  we  may  very  easily  find  that  we 
have  to  go  on  doing  so.  It  should,  however,  be 
remembered  that  the  ground  for  all  this  is  no  assured 
fact,  but  only  the  exigencies  of  a  complicated  theory 
which,  quite  apart  from  this,  has  a  load  of  improbability 
to  contend  with. 

I  will  give  one  further  example  of  a  different  kind. 
The  tendency  of  the  criticism  that  has  been,  and  still 
is  largely  in  vogue,  is  to  give  what  seems  to  me  quite 
undue  weight  to  the  exceptional,  the  abnormal,  the 

^  Chronologie,  p.  679.  "^  Ibid.  p.  680. 


Examples  of  Mistaken  Method  65 

eccentric,  as  compared  with  that  which  is  normal  and 
regular. 

In  the  controversy  over  the  Fourth  Gospel  one  of 
the  questions  has  been  as  to  the  exact  degree  of  impor- 
tance to  be  attached  to  the  so-called  Alogi,  who,  about 
the  third  quarter  of  the  second  century,  denied 
St.  John's  authorship  of  the  writings  attributed  to 
him,  including  the  Gospel,  and  by  a  piece  of  sheer 
bravado  ascribed  it  to  the  heretic  Cerinthus. 

Harnack's  account  of  this — coterie  perhaps  rather 
than  sect — is  just.  '  The  attack  did  not  spread  ;  it  was 
soon  defeated  ;  but  the  memory  of  it  lingered  on,  and 
the  policy  of  the  Church,  auspiciously  begun  by 
Irenaeus,  came  to  be  that  of  teaching  the  absolute 
equality  in  rank  and  value  of  the  four  component 
parts  of  the  Gospel  ^.'  But  the  point  to  which  I  wish 
to  call  attention  is  that  the  Church  writers  did  not 
allow  the  existence  of  these  Alogi  to  prevent  them 
from  classing  the  Gospel  among  the  Homologoumena, 
or  books  about  the  canonicity  of  which  all  Christians 
were  agreed.  Eusebius  uses  strong  language.  He 
says  that  both  the  Gospel  and  the  First  Epistle  were 
accepted  without  dispute  by  his  own  contemporaries 
as  well  as  by  the  ancients  (//.  E.  iii.  24.  17).  And,  if 
it  is  said  that  Eusebius  was  writing  a  century  and 
a  half  after  the  Alogi,  when  that  little  side-eddy  of 
opinion  had  subsided  and  been  forgotten,  it  is  not 
Eusebius  alone  who  ignores  their  existence  in  this 
manner.  Irenaeus  is  one  of  those  who  certainly  knew 
about  them ;  and  yet  he  regards  the  Four  Gospels, 
^   Chronologic,  p.  695. 


66  //.    Critical  Methods 

our  present  four,  as  a  sort  of  divine  institution,  deeply 
implanted  in  the  nature  of  things,  directly  presided 
over  and  inspired  by  Christ  the  Word  {adv.  Haer.  iii. 
1 1.  9).  A  little  later  Clement  of  Alexandria  speaks  of 
the  same  Four  Gospels  as  specially  handed  down 
among  Christians  {Strom,  iii.  13.  93).  And,  again, 
a  little  later  Origen  describes  them  as  *  alone  un- 
questioned in  the  Church  of  God  under  heaven '  (Eus. 
H.  E.  vi.  25.  4).  Still  earlier,  a  contemporary  of  the 
Alogi,  Tatian,  gave  effect  to  the  same  belief  by  com- 
posing his  Diatessaron.  And  the  Muratorian  Fragment 
also  endorses  it. 

This  striking  unanimity  from  all  parts  of  the 
Christian  world  serves  to  reduce  the  Alogi  to  their 
right  dimensions.  The  reason  why  they  have  bulked 
rather  larger  than  they  should  do  is,  I  believe,  because 
they  wielded  the  pen.  It  will  be  remembered  that 
Dr.  Salmon  was  for  reducing  them  to  the  single 
person  of  Caius  of  Rome.  Schwartz  also  argues  that 
not  more  than  a  single  writer  may  be  meant.  He 
thinks  that  in  any  case  Epiphanius  had  a  book  before 
him  ^.  The  Alogi  were  in  any  case  a  very  ephemeral 
phenomenon,  chiefly  significant  in  the  history  of  the 
Canon,  as  marking  the  slight  element  of  resistance  to 
the  establishment  of  the  group  of  Four  Gospels. 

II.   The  Oldest  Solution  of  the  Problem  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel. 

You  will  think  perhaps  that  I   have  been  a  long 
time  in  approaching  the  direct  treatment  of  the  Fourth 
^   Ueberd.  Tod,  &c.,  p.  31. 


The  Oldest  Sohition  of  the  Problem         67 

Gospel.  It  is  quite  true  that  I  have  thought  well 
to  begin  the  approach  from  a  distance,  as  it  were  by 
sap  and  trench,  before  planting  my  guns — such  as 
they  are.  I  have  indeed  the  ambition  in  this  course 
of  lectures  not  only  to  state  a  case  in  regard  to  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  but  also  at  the  same  time  to  con- 
tribute, if  I  may,  to  the  work  so  admirably  initiated 
by  Dr.  Drummond,  of  commending  by  the  way  what 
I  conceive  to  be  sound  principles  of  criticism,  as  con- 
trasted with  others  which  I  consider  unsound.  It 
happens  that  a  discussion  of  the  Fourth  Gospel 
specially  lends  itself  to  this  purpose. 

In  accordance  with  what  I  have  been  saying,  you 
will  not  expect  of  me  any  new  and  startling  theory  to 
account  for  the  phenomena  of  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
I  am  content  to  go  back  to  the  oldest  categorical 
statement  in  respect  to  it  that  history  has  handed 
down  to  us.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  statement, 
plain  and  direct  as  it  is,  really  gives  an  adequate 
explanation,  if  not  exactly  of  everything,  yet  at  least 
of  all  the  salient  points  that  need  explaining. 

Eusebius  {H.  E.  vi.  14.  7)  has  preserved  for  us  the 
substance  of  a  passage  from  the  Hypotyposes,  or 
Outlines,  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  which  he  says 
that  Clement  derived  from  the  '  early  Presbyters ' 
(napaSoaLi'  rcov  dveKaO^v  np^a^vT^pcdv),  and  which  dealt 
among  other  things  with  the  order  of  the  Gospels. 
After  speaking  of  the  other  Evangelists,  he  says  that 
'  last  of  all  John  perceiving  that  the  bodily  (or 
external)  facts  had  been  set  forth  in  the  (other) 
Gospels,   at   the    instance    of  his    disciples   and  with 

¥  2 


68  //.    Critical  Methods 

the    inspiration   of   the    Spirit   composed    a    spiritual 
Gospel.' 

A  very  similar  tradition  had  been  given  by  Eusebius 
in  an  earlier  book  (iii.  24).  He  heads  the  chapter, 
'  On  the  Order  of  the  Gospels,'  and  in  the  course 
of  it  he  writes  as  follows  : 

'  Nevertheless,  of  all  the  disciples  of  the  Lord,  only 
Matthew  and  John  have  left  us  written  memoirs,  and 
they  are  reported  (Kare^ei  Aoyoy^)  to  have  been  led  to 
write  under  pressure  of  necessity.  Matthew,  having 
previously  preached  to  the  Hebrews,  when  he  was 
about  to  go  to  other  peoples,  committed  to  writing 
the  Gospel  that  bears  his  name  in  his  native  tongue, 
and  so  by  the  written  book  compensated  those  whom 
he  was  leaving  for  the  loss  of  his  presence.  And  when 
Mark  and  Luke  had  by  that  time  published  their 
Gospels,  they  say  that  John,  having  before  spent  all 
his  time  in  oral  preaching,  at  last  came  also  to  write 
for  some  such  reason  as  this.  The  three  Gospels  first 
written  having  been  by  this  distributed  everywhere, 
and  having  come  into  his  hands,  they  say  that  he 
accepted  them,  bearing  witness  to  their  truth,  but 
(adding)  that  there  was  only  wanting  to  their  record 
the  narrative  of  what  was  done  by  Christ  at  first  and 
at  the  beginning  of  His  preaching.' 

At  this  point  Eusebius  digresses  to  show  that  what 
was  said  was  true.  The  first  three  Evangelists  began 
the  main  body  of  their  narrative  after  John  the 
Baptist  was  cast  into  prison  ;  but  St.  John  expressly 
tells  us  that,  at  the  time  of  the  events  related  in  his 
early  chapters,  John  was  not  yet  in  prison.  Any  one 
attending   to    this,    Eusebius    said,    would    no    longer 

'  On  this  phrase  see  Kort,  /udaisfic  Christianity,  pp.  170-3. 


The  Oldest  So  hit  ion  of  the  Problem  69 

suppose  that  the  Gospels  were  at  variance  with  each 
other,  and  would  see  that  John  had  reason  for  being 
silent  as  to  the  genealogy  of  our  Saviour's  human 
descent,  as  this  had  been  already  written  by  Matthew 
and  Luke,  and  for  beginning  with  His  divinity,  as 
though  this  had  been  reserved  by  the  Holy  Ghost  for 
him  as  one  greater  than  they.  These  last  are  the 
words  of  Eusebius,  who  is  very  probably  influenced 
by  his  recollection  of  the  language  of  Clement.  Un- 
fortunately we  cannot  locate  the  rest  of  the  tradition. 
It  would  be  only  a  guess  to  suppose  that  it  came  from 
Hippolytus,  at  the  time  of  his  controversy  with  Caius. 
But  in  any  case  there  is  a  good  deal  of  evidence  to 
show  that  the  opening  sections  of  the  Gospels  were 
being  much  canvassed  towards  the  end  of  the  second 
and  at  the  beginning  of  the  third  century.  The 
passage  is  in  general  agreement  with  Clement,  and 
avoids  his  mistake  in  saying  that  the  two  Gospels 
containing  the  genealogies  were  the  first  to  be  written. 
Really  Clement  alone  has  all  the  essential  points, 
which  are  these  : 

1.  The  Gospel  is  the  work  of  St.  John  the  Apostle — 

for  there  is  no  doubt  that  he  is  intended. 

2.  It  was  written  towards  the  end  of  his  life,  after 

the  publication  of  the  other  three. 

3.  The  three   Gospels  were  in  the  hands  of  the 

Apostle,  and  he  had  read  and  up  to  a  certain 
point  approved  of  them. 

4.  What   he   himself    undertook    to   write   was   a 

Gospel,    not   a   biography ;    the    difference    is 
important. 


70  //.    Critical  Methods 

5.   In  contrast  with  the  other  Gospels  it  was  recog- 
nized as  being  in  a  special  sense  'a  spiritual 
Gospel.' 
I  believe  that  these  data  will  enable  us  to  under- 
stand all  the  facts,  both  those  which  are  more  favour- 
able to  the  Gospel  and  those  which  are  in  a  sense 
less  favourable. 

1.  The  best  of  reasons  is  given  for  all  those  marks 
of  an  eye-witness  which  we  shall  see  to  be  present  in 
great  number  and  strength.  They  point  to  a  first- 
hand relation  between  the  author  and  the  facts  which 
he  records.  If  the  Gospel  is  not  the  work  of  an  eye- 
witness, then  the  writer  has  made  a  very  sustained 
and  extraordinary  effort  to  give  the  impression  that 
he  was  one. 

2.  By  throwing  the  Gospel  to  the  end  of  the 
Apostle's  life,  a  considerable  interval  is  placed  between 
the  events  and  the  date  of  its  composition.  That 
means  that  the  facts  will  have  passed  through  a 
medium.  Unconsciously  the  mind  in  which  they  lay 
will  have  brought  its  own  experience  to  bear  upon 
them  ;  it  will  have  a  tendency  to  mix  up  the  plain 
statement  of  what  was  said  and  done  with  an  element 
of  interpretation  suggested  by  its  own  experience. 
And  this  will  be  done  in  a  way  that  we  should 
call  '  naive,'  i.  e.  without  any  conscious  self-analysis. 
The  mingling  of  objective  and  subjective  will  take 
place  spontaneously  and  without  reflection.  The 
details  will  not  be  given  out  exactly  as  they  went  in  ; 
and  yet  the  writer  will  not  be  himself  aware  that  he 
is  setting  down  anything  but  what  he  heard  and  saw. 


The  Oldest  Solution  of  the  Problem         71 

3.  The  relation  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  to  its  prede- 
cessors accurately  corresponds  to  that  described  in  the 
tradition.  On  the  one  hand  their  contents  are  very 
largely  assumed  ;  and  on  the  other  hand  the  author 
does  not  hesitate,  where  he  thinks  it  necessary,  to 
correct  them.  The  relation  is  easy  and  natural  ;  it 
at  once  accounts  for  the  selection  of  the  incidents 
narrated.  The  author  evidently  felt  himself  at  liberty 
to  select  just  those  incidents  which  suited  his  purpose. 

4.  And  that  purpose,  it  is  important  to  remember, 
was  not  by  any  means  purely  historical.  The  author 
was  writing  a  Gospel,  not  a  biography  in  the  modern 
sense  of  the  word.  His  object  was  definitely  religious, 
and  not  literary.  He  tells  us  in  set  terms  what  he 
proposed  to  do  :  '  These  things  are  written,  that  ye 
may  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  ; 
and  that  believing  ye  may  have  life  in  His  name.' 
He  did  not  really  aim  at  a  complete  narrative  of 
external  events  or  an  exhaustive  study  of  a  complex 
human  character.  He  aimed  at  producing  faith  ; 
and  he  sought  to  produce  it  by  describing  at  length 
a  few  significant  incidents,  taken  out  of  a  much 
larger  whole. 

5.  The  previous  writings  that  came  into  his  hands 
were  also  Gospels  ;  and  they  too  were  intended  to 
produce  faith.  But  in  this  direction  the  author  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  felt  that  something  more  remained  to 
be  done.  Christendom  had  its  Gospels,  but  not  as 
yet  exactly  *  a  spiritual  Gospel.'  A  '  spiritual  Gospel  * 
meant  one  that  sought  to  bring  out  the  divine  side  of 
its  subject.     When  St.  Paul  at  the  beginning  of  the 


72  //.    Critical  Methods 

Epistle  to  the  Romans  draws  an  antithesis  between 
the  Son  of  David  *  according  to  the  flesh '  and  the 
Son  of  God  *  according  to  the  spirit  of  hoHness,'  he  is 
anticipating  exactly  this  later  contrast  between  the 
Gospels  of  the  bodily  life  and  of  the  spirit.  '  Spiritual ' 
means  'indwelt  by  the  Spirit  of  God.'  And  it  was 
that  side  of  the  life  of  Christ  in  which  the  Spirit  of 
God  was  seen  living  and  working  in  Him  that  the 
fourth  evangelist  undertook  specially  to  describe. 

If,  then,  it  is  objected  that  the  Gospel  is  onesided, 
that  it  gives  undue  prominence  to  this  divine  side, 
we  begin  by  asking  what  is  meant  by  undue,  what 
standard  of  measurement  marks  it  as  undue.  Obviously 
the  standard  is  that  which  we  have  just  dismissed  as 
altogether  beside  the  mark,  the  standard  of  the  modern 
biography.  The  Gospel  does  not  in  the  least  profess 
to  do  what  the  modern  biography  does  ;  but  what 
the  writer  does  profess  to  do,  he  was  perfectly  within 
his  right  in  doing.  He  desired  to  set  forth  Christ 
as  Divine.  If  that  is  to  be  onesided,  of  course  he 
is  onesided.  Clement  tells  us  why  he  did  it.  It  was 
because  he  thought  that  the  physical  and  external 
side,  the  human  side  of  his  subject,  had  had  justice 
done  to  it  already.  In  this  respect  the  older  Gospels 
were  adequate,  and  he  had  no  special  wish  to  add  to 
them.  The  one  thing  he  did  feel  called  upon  to  add, 
and  that  he  knew  he  could  add,  was  a  fuller  delinea- 
tion of  the  divine  side.  He  is  not  to  be  blamed  for 
doing  the  very  thing  which  he  proposed. 

The  paragraph  in  Clement  of  Alexandria  is  stated 
by   him    to   be  derived  from   '  the  early  presbyters.' 


The  Oldest  Solution  of  the  Problem         73 

They  were  a  good  authority ;  probably,  if  not  al- 
together identical  with  the  group  drawn  upon  by 
Papias,  yet  at  least  in  part  identical  with  it.  Papias 
and  Irenaeus  on  the  one  hand,  and  Clement  of 
Alexandria  on  the  other,  are  just  two  branches  of 
the  same  tree,  or  at  least  two  suckers  from  the 
same  root.  That  root  is  often  called  the  School  of 
St.  John,  It  is  from  the  School  of  St.  John  that  they 
ultimately  derive  their  information  about  St.  John. 
What  authority  could  be  better  .-* 

It  is  not  possible  to  say  how  far  the  language  of 
Clement  comes  from  the  Presbyters,  and  how  far  it 
is  his  own.  The  phrase  '  a  spiritual  Gospel '  may 
be  his  own  coinage,  an  early  effort  of  descriptive 
criticism,  putting  into  words  what  he  felt  to  be  the 
distinctive  characteristic  of  the  Gospel.  In  any  case 
the  phrase  is  a  happy  one  ;  it  just  expresses,  in  the 
briefest  compass,  that  which  really  most  differentiates 
the  Fourth  Gospel  from  the  other  three. 


LECTURE   III 

THE    STANDPOINT    OF    THE   AUTHOR 

I.   The  Gospel  is  put  forward  as  the  Work 
of  an  Eye-witness. 

There  are  a  number  of  passages  in  the  Gospel 
and  First  Epistle  of  St.  John  which  go  to  show  that 
the  author  either  was,  or  at  least  intended  to  give 
the  impression  that  he  was,  an  eye-witness  of  the 
Life  of  Christ.  We  will  leave  it  an  open  question 
for  the  present  which  of  these  two  alternatives  we 
are  to  choose.  And  we  will  begin  by  collecting  the 
passages,  and  justifying  the  description  that  has  just 
been  given  of  them. 

The  passages  fall  into  groups ;  the  first  small  but 
important,  the  others  larger  but,  except  in  a  few  cases, 
more  indefinite. 

On  the  principles  of  criticism  on  which  we  are 
going,  we  shall  assume  that  the  Gospel  and  First 
Epistle  that  bear  the  name  of  St.  John  are  by  the 
same  author,  and  that,  so  far  as  the  authorship  is  con- 
cerned, what  holds  good  for  the  one  will  hold  good 
also  for  the  other.  The  proof  is  not  absolutely 
stringent.  Identity  of  style,  and  close  resemblance 
of  ideas,  are  compatible  with  duality  of  authorship, 
because  one  writer  may  imitate  another.  But  in 
practice,  unless  the  reasons  for  laying  stress  upon 
it  are  strong  and  clear,  a  refinement  like  this  may  be 


The  Gospel  comes  from  an  Eye-witness       75 

left  out  of  account.  Of  course  there  is  the  distinction 
which  Bacon  noted  between  the  minds  that  are  quick 
to  observe  resemblances  and  those  that  are  quick  to 
observe  differences.  This  question  of  the  relation 
of  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  to  the  First  Epistle  is  a 
touchstone  by  which  such  minds  may  be  distinguished. 
I  allow  that  the  two  works  may  be  assigned  to 
different  authors  ^  I  allow  it  in  the  way  in  which 
on  most  questions,  if  we  attempt  a  nice  enumeration 
of  conditions,  there  is  usually  some  remote  possibility 
to  be  allowed  for.  The  quotation  from  Dr.  Drummond 
on  the  De  Vita  Contemplaiiva  that  I  gave  in  the 
last  lecture  may  help  us  to  measure  how  remote 
the  other  possibility  is.  As  a  practical  person,  dealing 
with  these  questions  on  a  practical  scale,  I  shall 
venture  to  assume  that  the  Gospel  and  the  First 
Epistle  are  by  the  same  hand.  It  is  of  course  open 
to  any  one  to  ignore  arguments  based  on  this  assump- 
tion, if  he  prefers  to  do  so. 

i.  Passages  which  make  a  direct  claim. 

I  am  treading  on  very  familiar  ground,  but  I  must 
ask  you  to  forgive  me  if  I  begin  by  quoting  the  open- 
ing words  of  the  First  Epistle  : 

'  That  which   was  from   the  beginning,  that  which 

'  The  division  of  opinion  in  this  case  is  among  the  more  radical 
critics  themselves.  H.  J.  Holtzmann,  Schmiedel,  and  Professor 
Bacon  are  on  the  one  side ;  Jlilicher,  Wrede,  and  Wernle  are  on 
the  other ;  and  in  each  of  these  instances  the  opinion  is  thoroughly 
characteristic ;  the  subtle  and  acute  minds  are  ranged  against  those 
that  are  stronger  on  the  side  of  what  we  should  call  plain  common 
sense. 


76         ///.    The  Standpoint  of  the  Author 

we  have  heard,  that  which  we  have  seen  with  our 
eyes,  that  which  we  beheld,  and  our  hands  handled, 
concerning  the  Word  of  life  (and  the  life  was  mani- 
fested, and  we  have  seen,  and  bear  witness,  and  declare 
unto  you  the  life,  the  eternal  life,  which  was  with  the 
Father,  and  was  manifested  unto  us) ;  that  which  we 
have  seen  and  heard  declare  we  unto  you  also,  that  ye 
also  may  have  fellowship  with  us  :  yea,  and  our  fellow- 
ship is  with  the  Father,  and  with  his  Son  Jesus  Christ: 
and  these  things  we  write,  that  our  joy  may  be  ful- 
filled' (i  Johni.  1-3). 

The  prima  facie  view  of  this  passage  undoubtedly 
is  that  the  writer  is  speaking  as  one  of  a  group  of 
eye-witnesses.  But  there  are  two  ways  in  which  this 
inference  is  turned  aside. 

T.  Harnack^  and  some  others  take  it  as  referring 
not  to  bodily  but  to  mystical  vision. 

2.  Others,  again,  think  of  the  writer  as  speaking 
in  the  name  of  a  whole  generation,  or  of  Christians 
generally. 

In  regard  to  the  first  of  these  explanations  we  note 
that  the  word  O^daOai,  is  used  twenty-two  times  in  all 
the  New  Testament,  including  the  present  passage  ; 
and  in  every  one  of  bodily  and  not  of  mental  or 
spiritual  vision.  And  whatever  sense  we  may  put 
upon  seeing  or  hearing,  it  is  difficult  to  explain  such 
a  strong  expression  as  '  that  which  .  .  .  our  hands  have 
handled,'  where  the  writer  seems  to  go  out  of  his 
way  to  exclude  any  ambiguity,  in  any  other  sense 
than  of  physical  handling. 

In   regard   to  the  second  explanation  we  observe 

'  Chronoiogie,  &c.,  p.  676. 


Passages  ivliich  make  a  direct  claim        77 

that  there  is  a  contrast  between  'we'  and  'you,' 
between  teachers  and  taught.  The  teachers  are  in 
any  case  a  small  body  ;  and  they  seem  to  rest  their 
authority,  or  at  least  the  impulse  to  teach,  on  the 
desire  to  communicate  to  others  what  they  had  them- 
selves experienced.  I  have  therefore  little  doubt 
that  the  prima  facie  view  of  the  passage  is  the  right 
one.  The  writer  speaks  of  himself  as  a  member  of 
a  small  group,  like  that  of  the  Apostles,  but  a  group 
that  may  include  all  who  had  really  seen  the  Lord 
and  who  afterwards  took  up  the  work  of  witnessing 
to  Him. 

The  other  passage,  John  i.  14,  is  more  ambiguous  : 
'  the  Word  became  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us  (and 
we  beheld  his  glory,  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten 
from  the  Father),  full  of  grace  and  truth.'  If  this 
had  stood  alone,  it  might  have  seemed  an  open 
question  whether  '  we  beheld  '  was  not  used  in  a  vague 
sense  of  Christians  generally — or  even  of  the  human 
race,  as  ' tabernacled  among  us'  just  before  might 
mean  'among  men.'  But  the  more  specific  reference 
would  be  more  pointed ;  and  it  is  favoured  by  the 
analogy  of  the  passage  of  which  we  have  just  been 
speaking  as  well  as  of  those  which  follow. 

In  both  the  above  cases  the  writer  is  speaking  in  his 
own  person.  This  is  not  quite  so  clear  in  xix.  35,  where, 
after  describing  the  lance-thrust  and  the  pierced  side, 
the  narrative  goes  on,  '  And  he  that  hath  seen  hath 
borne  witness,  and  his  witness  is  true  :  and  he  {kKdvoi) 
knoweth  that  he  saith  true,  that  ye  also  may  believe.' 
Is  the  writer  by  these  words  objectifying,  and  as  it 


78         ///.    The  Standpoint  of  the  Author 

were  looking  back  upon  himself,  or  is  he  pointing  to 
some  third  person  unnamed  in  the  background  ?  Both 
views  are  antecedently  possible.  Perhaps  the  latter 
is  more  consistent  with  the  ordinary  use  of  kK^lvos.  If 
we  accept  it,  then  I  should  be  inclined  to  think  with 
Zahn  that  eKecpos  points  to  Christ.  It  would  be  just 
a  formula  of  strong  asseveration,  like  *  God  knoweth  * 
in  2  Cor.  xi.  11,  31,  &c.  There  would  be  a  near 
parallel  in  3  John  12,  '  Demetrius  hath  the  witness  of 
all  men,  and  of  the  truth  itself:  yea,  we  also  bear 
witness  ;  and  thou  knowest  that  our  witness  is  true.' 
This  view  is  the  more  attractive  because  it  is  in 
keeping  with  the  habit  of  thought  disclosed  in  the 
Gospel.  As  the  Son  appeals  to  the  witness  of  the 
Father,  as  it  were  dimly  seen  in  the  background,  so 
also  it  would  I  think  be  natural  for  the  beloved 
disciple  to  appeal  to  the  Master  who  is  no  longer  at 
his  side  in  bodily  presence,  but  who  is  present  with 
him  and  with  the  Church  in  spirit :  '  he  who  saw  the 
sight  has  set  it  down  in  writing  .  .  .  and  there  is  one 
above  who  knows  that  he  is  telling  the  truth.' 

This  is  the  view  that,  after  giving  to  it  the  best 
consideration  I  can,  I  am  on  the  whole  inclined  to 
accept.  I  could  not,  however,  agree  that  there  is 
anything  really  untenable  in  what  may  be  called  the 
common  view,  that  the  asseveration  is  of  a  lower 
kind,  and  that  the  author  is  simply  turning  back  upon 
himself  and  protesting  his  own  veracity.  The  use  of 
Udvo^  to  take  up  the  subject  of  a  sentence  is  specially 
frequent  and  specially  characteristic  of  this  Gospel  ; 
and  as  the  author  systematically  speaks  of  himself  in 


Passages  which  make  a  direct  claim        79 

the  third  person,  it  seems  to  mc  that  the  word  may 
also  naturally  refer  to  himself  so  objectified  :  '  he  who 
saw  the  sig^ht  has  set  it  down  .  .  .  and  he  is  well 
assured  that  what  he  says  is  true.' 

In  any  case,  however,  I  must  needs  think  that  the 
bearing  witness  is  that  of  the  written  Gospel,  and  that 
the  author  of  the  Gospel  is  the  same  as  he  who  saw 
the  sight.  The  identity  is,  it  seems  to  me,  clenched 
by  xxi.  24,  to  which  I  shall  come  back  in  a  moment. 

At  this  point  I  may  be  permitted  to  interject  a 
speculation — shall  I  call  it  a  pious  speculation  ?  it 
certainly  does  not  profess  to  be  more — as  to  the 
origin  of  the  peculiar  way  the  Fourth  Evangelist  has 
of  referring  to  himself.  The  idea  can  only  be  enter- 
tained by  those  who  think  that  the  writer  was  really 
a  companion  of  the  Lord,  either  an  Apostle  or  one 
very  near  to  the  Apostles.  Is  it  not  possible  that  such 
a  one  may  have  been  influenced  by  the  way  in  which 
the  Master  referred  to  Himself?  It  is  characteristic 
of  the  Synoptic  Christ  that  He  constantly  speaks  of 
Himself  objectively  as  '  the  Son  of  Man.'  May  we 
not  suppose  that  the  Evangelist,  through  long  and 
familiar  intercourse,  came  insensibly  and  instinctively 
to  adopt  for  himself  a  similar  method  of  oblique  and 
allusive  reference  ?  It  is  of  course  not  quite  the  same 
thing ;  but  there  seems  to  be  enough  resemblance 
for  the  one  usage  to  suggest  the  other.  The  beloved 
disciple  had  a  special  reason  for  not  wishing  to  obtrude 
his  own  personality.  He  was  conscious  of  a  great 
privilege,  of  a  privilege  that  would  single  him  out  for 
all  time  among  the  children  of  men.     He  could  not 


8o         ///.    The  Standpoint  of  the  Author 

resist  the  temptation  to  speak  of  this  privilege.  The 
impulse  of  affection  responding  to  affection  prompted 
him  to  claim  it.  But  the  consciousness  that  he  was 
doing  so,  and  the  reaction  of  modesty  led  him  at  the 
same  moment  to  suppress,  what  a  vulgar  egotism 
might  have  accentuated,  the  lower  plane  of  his  own 
individuality.  The  son  of  Zebedee  (if  it  was  he) 
desired  to  be  merged  and  lost  in  '  the  disciple  whom 
Jesus  loved.' 

There  is  nothing  in  the  least  unnatural  in  this ;  it 
is  a  little  complex  perhaps,  but  only  with  the  com- 
plexity of  life,  when  different  motives  clash  in  a  fine 
nature.  The  delicacy  of  attitude  corresponds  to  an 
innate  delicacy  of  mind.  When  one  reads  some  of 
the  criticisms  on  this  attitude,  one  is  reminded  of 
a  sentence  in  an  English  classic,  Cowper's  indignant 
remonstrance  at  Johnson's  treatment  of  Milton. 

'  As  a  poet,  he  has  treated  him  with  severity  enough, 
and  has  plucked  one  or  two  of  the  most  beautiful 
feathers  out  of  his  Muse's  wing,  and  trampled  them 
under  his  great  foot\' 

Samuel  Johnson,  excellent  person  as  he  was,  is 
not  the  only  critic  who  has  had  the  misfortune  to 
be  born  (metaphorically,  if  not  physically)  with  a 
*  great  foot '  and  a  heavy  hand. 

The  Gospel  closes  with  a  scene  in  which  the  writer 
refers  in  his  usual  oblique  way  to  himself.  I  cannot 
think  that  there  is  any  real  reason  for  the  assumption, 
which  is  so  often  and  so  confidently  made,  that  the 
last  chapter  is  an  appendix  written  after  the  author 

^  Letter  to  the  Rev.  William  Unwin,  dated  Oct.  31,  1779. 


Passa^res  which  make  a  direct  claim        8i 


•^i> 


was  dead.  On  this  point,  again,  I  entirely  agree  with 
Dr.  Drummond,  '  It  is  surely  conceivable  that  the 
aged  disciple,  feeling  death  stealing  upon  him,  might 
point  out  that  no  words  of  Jesus  justified  the  expecta- 
tion which  had  arisen  among  some  of  his  devoted 
friends  \'  The  complete  identity  of  thought  and  style, 
and  the  way  in  which  this  last  chapter  is  dovetailed 
into  the  preceding  ('  This  is  now  the  third  time  that 
Jesus  was  manifested  to  the  disciples';  compare  at 
the  beginning  of  the  Gospel  the  counting  up  of  the 
first  Galilean  miracles,  ii.  ii,  iv.  54),  seem  to  prove 
that  the  last  chapter  is  by  the  same  hand  as  the  rest 
of  the  Gospel  ^. 

But  at  the  very  end  another  hand  does  take  up  the 
pen  ;  and  this  time  the  writer  speaks  in  the  name 
of  a  plurality ;  *  This  is  the  disciple  which  beareth 
witness  of  these  things,  and  wrote  these  things  :  and 
we  know  that  his  witness  is  true '  (xxi.  24).  The 
critics  who  assert  that  the  Gospel  is  not  the  work 
of  an  eye-witness,  and  even  those  who  say  that  the 
last  chapter  was  not  written  by  the  author  of  the 
whole,  wantonly  accuse  these  last  words  of  untruth. 
That  is  another  of  the  methods  of  modern  criticism 
that  seem  to  me  sorely  in  need  of  reforming.  I  hope 
that  a  time  may  come  when  it  will  be  considered  as 
wrong  to  libel  the  dead  as  it  is  to  libel  the  living. 

I  accept,  then,  this  last  verse  as  weighty  testimony 
to  the  autoptic  character  of  the  Gospel.  It  is  easy  to 
see  that  the  two  concluding  verses  are  added  on  the 

^  Character,  &c.,  p.  387. 

'  For  the  proof  see  especially  Lightfoot. 


82  ///.    The  Standpoint  of  the  Author 

occasion  of  its  publication  by  those  who  pubHshed  it. 
They,  as  it  were,  endorse  the  witness  which  it  had 
borne  to  itself. 

ii.  Passages  in  which  the  impression  conveyed  is 
indirect. 

We  have  been  through  the  few  salient  passages 
which,  in  spite  of  the  criticism  to  which  they  have 
been  exposed,  still  proclaim  in  no  uncertain  terms  the 
first-hand  character  of  the  work  to  which  they  belong. 
I  now  go  on  to  collect  a  number  of  passages  which 
are  more  indirect  in  their  evidence,  and  just  because 
of  this  indirectness  have  a  special  value,  because  the 
evidence  which  they  afford  is  unconscious  and  unde- 
signed. For  the  present  I  shall  speak  only  of  two 
groups  :  first,  a  series  of  passages  in  which  the  author 
seems  to  write  as  though  from  the  inner  circle  of  the 
disciples  and  companions  of  Jesus ;  and,  secondly, 
another  series  in  which  he  refers  to  the  way  in  which 
impressions  received  at  the  time  were  corrected  or 
interpreted  by  subsequent  experience  and  reflection. 

The  Gospel  has  not  long  opened  before  we  begin 
to  receive  that  subtle  impression  which  is  given  when 
one  who  has  himself  taken  part  in  a  scene  reproduces 
it  as  history.  I  know  that  this  kind  of  effect  may  be 
produced  by  imagination ;  and  I  will  not  assume  as 
yet  that  it  may  not  be  so  produced  in  this  instance ; 
I  content  myself  for  the  present  with  pointing  out 
that  it  exists. 

When  we  take  the  last  two  paragraphs  of  the  first 
chapter  of  the  Gospel  (i.  35-51),  I  think  we  shall  feel 


Passages  where  the  impression  is  indirect     83 

as  though  we  were  being  introduced  to  a  Httle  circle 
of  neighbours  and  acquaintances.  Two  friends,  one 
of  whom  is  called  Andrew,  and  the  other  is  unnamed, 
are  interested  in  what  they  have  seen  of  Jesus  and 
in  what  the  Baptist  had  said  about  Him,  and  they 
ask  leave  to  join  Him.  They  remain  for  some  hours 
in  His  company;  and  it  is  clear  that  their  interest 
is  not  diminished.  Andrew  finds  his  brother  Simon, 
and  he  too  is  brought  up  and  introduced.  Jesus  Him- 
self takes  the  initiative  in  inviting  a  fourth,  Philip. 
We  are  told  expressly  that  Philip  was  from  the  same 
city  as  the  two  before  named  ;  and  he  in  turn  finds 
and  introduces  his  friend  Nathanael.  There  is  just 
one  of  the  five  whose  name  is  not  given.  He  is  the 
silent  spectator  in  the  background.  What  if  it  were 
he  to  whom  we  owe  the  story?  In  any  case  there 
is  this  little  group,  all  apparently  from  the  same 
locality,  who  naturally  enough  find  themselves  to- 
gether, drawn  at  first  by  the  preacher  of  repentance, 
but  leaving  him  to  join  one  greater  than  he. 

We  pass  over  to  the  next  chapter  ;  but  that  will 
give  us  more  to  say  under  the  next  head.  There  are 
many  points  upon  which  we  might  pause,  but  I  will 
pass  on  to  the  middle  of  chap,  iii  (vers.  22-6).  There 
we  have  the  description  of  what  have  now  become 
two  groups,  the  disciples  of  Jesus  and  the  disciples 
of  John,  in  near  proximity  to  each  other,  and  with 
easy  intercourse  between  them.  The  narrative  seems 
to  be  written  from  the  standpoint  of  the  disciples. 
The  two  principals  are  in  the  background,  but  we 
follow  the  events  of  the  day  among  their  entourage. 

G  2 


84  ///.    The  Standpoint  of  the  Author 

There  is  a  little  discussion  between  some  of  John's 
disciples  and  a  stranger  (R.  V.)  about  a  question 
naturally  connected  with  baptism.  Such  a  discussion 
might  have  interested  at  the  time  one  who  was  near  at 
hand  and  in  friendly  relation  with  those  who  took 
part  in  it.  But  it  would  be  hard  to  find  any  other 
motive  that  could  suggest  it  to  a  Christian  at  the 
end  of  the  first  century. 

It  is  indeed  quite  possible  and  perhaps  probable 
that  Baldensperger  {Der  Prolog  des  vierte7i  Evan- 
gelmnts,  Freiburg  i.  B.,  1898)  is  right  in  supposing 
that  among  the  motives  present  to  the  mind  of  the 
Evangelist  was  that  of  marking  the  subordinate 
position  of  the  Baptist  as  compared  with  the  Messiah, 
to  whom  he  bore  witness.  We  can  quite  believe 
that  at  Ephesus,  at  the  time  when  the  Gospel  was 
written,  there  still  remained  some  who  had  only  been 
baptized  into  the  baptism  of  John,  like  the  disciples 
mentioned  in  Acts  xix.  1-7.  There  may  be  a  certain 
amount  of  polemical  or  apologetic  reference  to  such 
a  sect  as  this.  The  latter  part  of  chap,  iii  ('  he  must 
increase,  but  I  must  decrease')  may  be  of  this 
character ;  but  the  purely  historical  statements  in 
vers.  22-6  have  in  them  nothing  polemical;  they 
have  far  more  the  appearance  of  personal  reminis- 
cences, introduced  only  because  they  came  back  to 
the  memory  of  the  writer.  It  is  a  curious  fact  that 
the  Gospel  contains  several  references  to  '  purifying ' : 
e.  g.  ii.  6  (the  waterpots  at  Cana  *  set  there  after 
the  Jews'  manner  of  purifying'),  the  present  passage, 
iii.   22  ;  the  description,  in  xi.  55,  of  the  Jews  going 


Passages  where  the  impression  is  indirect    85 

up  to  purify  themselves  before  the  Passover,  and  the 
statement  (xviii.  28)  that  the  accusers  of  our  Lord 
did  not  enter  the  praetorium  *  that  they  might  not 
be  defiled,  but  might  eat  the  Passover.'  Nothing  is 
made  of  these  allusions ;  no  argument  is  based  upon 
them  ;  but  they  would  be  very  natural  if  the  Evange- 
list began  life  as  a  disciple  of  the  Baptist  and  had 
been  early  interested  in  such  questions. 

Turning  to  the  discourse  with  the  woman  of  Samaria 
we  observe  how  it  is  framed  as  it  were  in  the  move- 
ments of  the  disciples  :  in  ver.  8  they  go  into  the  city 
to  buy  provisions;  in  ver.  27  they  return,  and  are 
surprised  to  find  their  Master  engaged  in  conversation 
with  a  woman — contrary  to  the  practice  and  maxims 
of  the  Rabbis.  They  are  surprised,  but  they  do  not 
venture  upon  any  remonstrance.  They  had  left  their 
Master  weary  and  way-worn,  and  they  find  Him  re- 
freshed. They  do  not  understand  how  refreshment 
of  the  mind  carries  with  it  that  of  the  body;  and 
they  speculate  as  to  whether  food  had  not  been 
brought  to  Him  during  their  absence.  This  is 
another  scene  in  which  the  point  of  view  seems  to 
be  that  of  the  disciples,  and  in  which  we,  as  it  were, 
overhear  their  comments. 

It  has  often  been  objected  that  there  were  no 
witnesses  of  the  discourse  with  the  woman,  and  there- 
fore that  the  narrative  of  it  must  be  imaginary.  It 
is  full  of  touches,  as  we  shall  see  presently,  which  are 
so  appropriate  to  the  circumstances  that  I  find  it 
difficult  to  think  of  them  as  imaginary.  But  how 
do  we  know  that  there  were  no  witnesses  of  the  dis- 


66         ///.   The  Standpoint  of  the  Author 

course  ?  It  would  certainly  be  too  much  to  assume 
that  every  allusion  to  the  disciples  in  a  body  meant 
of  necessity  the  whole  number  of  the  Twelve.  We 
must  remember  by  the  way  that  the  Twelve  were 
not  yet  chosen ;  but  in  any  case  we  must  expect 
language  to  be  rough  and  approximate.  If  we  are 
really  to  think  of  the  author  of  the  Gospel  as  'the 
disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,'  we  should  doubtless  be 
right  in  assuming  that  the  love  was  ardently  returned. 
We  may  think  of  the  Apostle  as  a  youth,  only  just 
out  of  boyhood,  and  with  something  of  the  fidelity 
of  a  dog  for  his  master,  who  does  not  like  to  be  long 
out  of  his  sight.  *  Sicut  oculi  servorum  i7i  manibiLS 
dominorum  suortcm,  sicut  oculi  ancillae  in  manibus 
dominae  suae ' :  we  may  picture  to  ourselves  this  gentle 
youth  seated  a  pace  or  two  away,  and  not  wishing  to 
obtrude  his  presence,  but  eagerly  drinking  in  all  that 
passed. 

In  chap.  V,  the  disciples  are  not  prominent ;  but 
in  chap,  vi,  before  the  feeding  of  the  multitude,  we 
have  one  of  those  little  dialogues  which  are  so 
characteristic  of  this  Gospel,  bringing  in  two  of  the 
disciples  who  are  both  mentioned  by  name  (vi.  5-10). 
At  the  end  of  the  chapter  (vers.  60-71)  we  are  again 
taken  into  the  midst  of  the  circle  of  the  disciples. 
We  see  some  perplexed,  and  some  falling  away,  and 
an  echo  reaches  us  of  St.  Peter's  confession.  At  the 
same  time  we  have  a  premonitory  hint,  such  as  we  may 
be  sure  that  other  members  of  the  Twelve  recalled 
after  the  fact,  that  one  of  their  number  was  a  traitor. 

About  chap,   vii    I    shall    have  occasion  to   speak 


Passages  where  the  impression  is  indirect    87 

later.  I  will  only  now  point  to  the  discussion  with 
which  it  begins  between  Jesus  and  His  brethren 
(vers.  3-8).  This  again — if  it  is  not  pure  invention 
— is  only  likely  to  have  been  reported  by  one  who 
was  in  the  closest  intimacy,  not  only  with  the  disciples 
of  Jesus  but  with  His  domestic  circle.  And  again 
we  have  to  ask,  what  motive  there  could  be  for 
invention.  If  the  Gospel  gives  examples  of  belief, 
and  tries  to  promote  belief,  it  does  not  on  that 
account  suppress  examples  of  unbelief,  even  among 
the  nearest  relations.  This  episode  is  St.  John's 
counterpart  to  Mark  iii.  21  'His  friends  {ol  nap 
a{>Tov)  .  .  .  went  out  to  lay  hold  on  him  :  for  they 
said.   He  is  beside  himself.' 

The  next  occasion  on  which  we  are  reminded  of 
the  intimate  personal  side  of  our  Lord's  ministry  is 
the  story  of  Lazarus.  Here  we  have  two  groups, 
into  the  interior  of  which  we  are  allowed  some 
glimpses.  The  family  at  Bethany  is  one,  the  com- 
pany of  the  Twelve  is  the  other.  Here  once  more 
we  see  what  passed  from  within.  The  passage, 
vers.  7-16,  is  full  of  delicate  portraiture.  We  have 
the  remonstrances  of  the  Twelve  as  a  body  ;  moving 
in  a  higher  plane  than  these,  we  have  the  divine 
insight  which  sees  what  they  cannot  see,  and  knows 
what  it  will  do  ;  and  lastly,  we  have  the  impulsive, 
despondent,  faithful  Thomas — a  figure  so  clearly 
drawn  in  the  few  strokes  that  are  allotted  to  it — fully 
recognizing  and  perhaps  exaggerating  the  dangers, 
and  yet  not  letting  its  loyalty  yield  to  them :  *  Let 
us  also  go,  that  we  may  die  with  Him.' 


88  ///.    The  Standpoint  of  the  Author 

Parallel  to  this  description  of  what  passed  among 
the  Twelve  is  the  description  further  on  of  the  in- 
terior of  the  household,  the  different  behaviour  of 
the  two  sisters  and  their  Jewish  sympathizers.  If 
this  is  not  a  picture  constructed  wholly  by  art,  it 
represents  the  recollections  of  one  who  had  himself 
been  present  at  the  events  of  the  day,  and  who  had 
moved  freely  to  and  fro,  and  very  probably  talked 
them  over  after  the  day  was  done. 

A  natural  sequel  to  this  scene  is  the  supper  in 
the  same  house  six  days  before  the  Passover.  And, 
as  we  might  expect,  the  attitude  and  standpoint  of 
the  narrator  are  still  the  same.  He  shows  the  same 
intimacy  with  the  members  of  the  household  and 
with  his  own  companions.  He  remembers  the  un- 
generous short-sighted  speech  of  Judas  Iscariot,  to 
whom,  with  natural  antipathy,  he  attributes  the  worst 
motives. 

The  incident  of  the  coming  of  the  Greeks,  with 
its  accurate  singling  out  of  the  two  friends  Philip 
and  Andrew  and  the  account  of  the  part  played  by 
them,  also  reflects  the  standpoint  of  a  bystander  who 
is  near  the  centre. 

Still  more  does  this  come  out  in  the  whole  narra- 
tive of  the  Last  Supper.  One  or  two  episodes  stand 
out  as  specially  graphic  and  life-like.  The  first  is 
the  whole  description  of  the  Feet-washing  (vers.  3-12). 
The  other  is  the  indication  of  the  traitor  (vers.  21-30). 

Bishop  Lightfoot  noticed  long  ago  the  careful  use 
of  terms  in  this  last  passage.  In  the  book  by  which 
he  prepared  the  way  for  the  undertaking  of  a  Revised 


Passages  where  the  impression  is  indirect     89 

Version  of  the  New  Testament,  happily  accompHshed 
ten  years  later,  he  called  attention  to  the  defects  of 
the  Authorized  Version  of  John  xiii.  23,  25  : 

*[It]  makes  no  distinction  between  the  reclining 
position  of  the  beloved  disciple  throughout  the  meal, 
described  by  a»/a/ce//xero?,  and  the  sudden  change  of 
posture  at  this  moment,  introduced  by  avair^aaiv .  This 
distinction  is  further  enforced  in  the  original  by  a 
change  in  both  the  prepositions  and  the  nouns,  from 
kv  to  cTTf',  and  from  tS  KoXnca  to  to  arfido?.  St.  John 
was  reclining  on  the  bosom  of  his  Master  and  he 
suddenly  threw  back  his  head  upon  his  breast  to 
ask  a  question.' 

After  referring  also  to  xxi.  20,  Dr.  Lightfoot  adds: 

*  This  is  among  the  most  striking  of  those  vivid 
descriptive  traits  which  distinguish  the  narrative  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel  generally,  and  which  are  especially 
remarkable  in  these  last  scenes  of  Jesus'  life,  where 
the  beloved  disciple  was  himself  an  eye-witness  and  an 
actor  ^' 

It  has  been  objected  that  too  high  a  place  is  given 
to  the  '  beloved  disciple,'  and  that  the  stress  laid  on 
this  is  a  mark  of  egotism.  But  Bishop  Westcott  has 
shown  {ad  toe.)  that  this  criticism  rests  on  a  mistaken 
view  of  the  order  of  precedence.  The  place  of  honour 
was  in  the  centre,  and  the  guests  reclined  on  the  left 
side.  Peter  occupies  the  second  place  behind  his 
Master.  The  beloved  disciple  has  the  third  place, 
where  his  head  would  naturally  be  in  his  Master's 
bosom.  When  we  realize  this  all  the  details  of  the 
narrative  become  plain. 

*  On  a  Fresh  Revision  of  the  New  Testament  (1871),  pp.  72,  73. 


90         ///.    The  Standpoint  oj  the  Author 

What  we  have  said  of  the  Last  Supper  applies  also 
to  the  last  discourses  which  followed  upon  it.  There 
too  we  have  the  same  distinct  recollection  of  persons, 
of  the  questions  put  by  each,  and  the  replies  which 
they  received.  Thomas  and  Philip  stand  out  in  the 
dialogue  of  xiv.  4-9.  But  what  is  perhaps  still  more 
noticeable  is  the  careful  specification  of  Judas  (not 
Iscariot),  a  disciple  otherwise  obscure  and  of  little 
prominence,  in  ver.  22.  If  this  is  art,  it  is  art  that  is 
wonderfully  like  nature.  We  notice  also  the  disciples' 
comments,  evidently  spoken  in  an  undertone,  in  xvi.  1 7. 

What  could  be  more  easy  or  more  natural  than  the 
description  of  Gethsemane  in  xviii.  i,  2,  and  the  ex- 
planation that  it  was  a  familiar  haunt  of  Jesus  and 
His  disciples  ?  This  is  just  such  a  reminiscence  as 
we  might  expect  from  one  who  had  been  himself 
a  disciple. 

There  is  an  '  undesigned  coincidence "  in  the  fact 
that  the  unnamed  disciple  is  described  as  being  'known 
to  the  high  priest,'  and  that  the  Gospel,  of  which  he 
may  be  presumed  to  be  the  writer,  alone  gives  the 
name  of  the  high  priest's  servant,  whose  ear  Peter 
cut  off,  as  Malchus,  and  alone  knows  that  one  of  the 
servants  who  questioned  Peter  was  his  kinsman  (xviii. 
10,  15,  26).  It  was  apparently  because  the  unnamed 
disciple  was  a  privileged  person,  that  he  was  not  called 
upon  to  give  an  account  of  himself  as  Peter  was. 

We  need  not  go  the  whole  length  of  the  way  with 
Delff,  and  may  yet  feel  sure  that  it  is  not  an  accident 
that  this  same  disciple,  who  is  so  much  at  home  in  the 
high    priest's  house,  should  also  have  special  know- 


Passages  where  the  impression  is  indirect     91 

ledge    of    persons    like   Joseph   of    Arimathaea    and 
Nicodemus,  both  members  of  the  Sanhedrin. 

Other  portions  of  chaps,  xviii  and  xix  will  come 
before  us  in  other  connexions.  The  important  passage 
xix.  34,  35  has  already  been  discussed  in  part,  and  we 
shall  have  to  return  to  it  later.  The  whole  of  chap,  xx 
is  really  significant  for  our  purpose.  It  is  a  record  of 
events  that  immediately  follow  the  Resurrection,  and 
is  told  throughout  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
disciples.  The  delicate  precision  of  the  narrative  is 
specially  noteworthy  in  vers.  3-10,  where  again  we 
have  the  unnamed  disciple  in  the  company  of  St.  Peter. 
The  story  is  briefly  told,  but  there  is  enough  detail  to 
let  us  see  the  different  characterization  of  the  two  men. 
We  shall  not  be  wrong  in  thinking  of  the  unnamed 
disciple  as  the  younger  of  the  two,  indeed  in  the  first 
flush  of  youth.  He  is  fleet  of  foot  and  outstrips  his 
companion  ;  but  he  is  also  of  a  finer  and  more  sensitive 
mould,  and  when  he  reaches  the  tomb  a  feeling  of  awe 
comes  over  him,  and  he  pauses  for  a  moment  outside. 
The  impetuous  Peter  has  fewer  scruples,  and  he  hurries 
at  once  into  the  tomb,  and  makes  his  examination  of 
its  contents.  The  spell  is  broken,  and  the  young 
disciple  also  enters.  I  shall  have  a  word  to  say  later 
of  the  effect  on  both  disciples  of  what  they  see. 

In  the  rest  of  the  chapter  the  reader,  with  the 
author,  is  drawn  a  little  aside  and  allowed  to  witness 
the  events  one  by  one ;  first,  the  appearance  to  Mary 
Magdalene,  and  then  the  two  appearances  to  the 
collected  disciples,  when  Thomas  is  absent  and  after- 
wards when  he  is  present. 


92         ///.    The  Standpoint  of  the  Author 

A  like  point  of  view  appears  in  the  next  chapter. 
The  narrator  is  himself  never  far  away  from  the  events 
he  is  recording.  Towards  the  end  of  the  chapter  he 
is  pushed  forward  into  a  prominence  that  is  only 
faintly  disguised.  In  the  scene  on  the  lake  there 
comes  back  to  him  the  feeling  that  had  first  passed 
through  his  own  mind  as  well  as  those  of  his  com- 
panions. They  did  not  recognize  the  figure  that  in 
the  grey  dawn  called  to  them  from  the  shore.  The 
instinct  of  love  was  the  first  to  awake  that  sensitive 
quick  perception  :  the  old  parts  are  again  repeated  ; 
it  is  the  unnamed  disciple  who  speaks  and  Peter  who 
acts.  But  the  two  are  friends ;  and  presently,  when 
Peter  has  been  rather  hard  pressed  by  his  Lord's 
searching  inquiry  and  the  prophetic  forecast  with  which 
it  ends,  a  sudden  impulse  leads  him  to  turn  the  con- 
versation to  his  companion.  He  would  fain  have  the 
forecast  extended  to  him.  His  interest,  or  curiosity, 
is  baffled  by  an  ambiguous  reply.  And  here,  once 
more,  the  writer  steps  in  to  prevent  a  wrong  inference 
being  drawn  from  its  ambiguity. 

So  far  we  have  been  following  a  series  of  passages 
which  place  us  at  the  standpoint  of  the  disciples  at  the 
time  of  the  events  of  which  they  were  witnesses.  The 
writer  for  the  moment  revives  in  himself,  or  seems  to 
revive,  the  old  impression.  If  it  is  not  a  spontaneous 
recurrence  to  the  past,  it  is  at  least  successful  in  giving 
the  appearance  of  spontaneity. 

But  there  is  another  class  of  passages  where  the 
procedure  is  rather  more  complex;  where  the  writer 
not  only  throws  himself  back  into  the  past,  but  also 


Passages  where  the  impression  is  indirect    93 

looks  back  upon  the  past  in  the  light  of  his  subsequent 
experience.  There  is  no  better  example  of  this  than 
the  very  first  that  meets  us : 

'  And  to  them  that  sold  the  doves  he  said,  Take 
these  things  hence ;  make  not  my  Father's  house 
a  house  of  merchandise.  His  disciples  remembered 
that  it  was  written,  The  zeal  of  thine  house  shall  eat 
me  up.  The  Jews  therefore  answered  and  said  unto 
him,  What  sign  shewest  thou  unto  us,  seeing  that 
thou  doest  these  things  ?  Jesus  answered  and  said 
unto  them,  Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days 
I  will  raise  it  up.  The  Jews  therefore  said.  Forty 
and  six  years  was  this  temple  in  building,  and  wilt 
thou  raise  it  up  in  three  days  ?  But  he  spake  of  the 
temple  of  his  body.  When  therefore  he  was  raised 
from  the  dead,  his  disciples  remembered  that  he  spake 
this  ;  and  they  believed  the  scripture,  and  the  word 
which  Jesus  had  said'  (John  ii.  16-22). 

Here  we  have  two  allusions  to  the  disciples  as 
'remembering'  something  that  had  happened,  and 
combining  it  in  their  minds  with  an  idea  or  inter- 
pretation. Bishop  Westcott  distinguishes  between 
the  two  occasions.  He  thinks  that  the  expulsion  of 
the  buyers  and  sellers  recalled  to  the  disciples  at  once 
the  passage  of  the  psalm  (Ps.  Ixix.  9)  :  he  thinks  that 
they  applied  it  to  the  act  while  it  was  going  on.  On 
the  other  hand  ver.  22  is  explicit  to  the  effect  that  the 
disciples  did  not  bethink  them  of  the  saying,  and  see 
what  they  conceive  to  be  its  meaning,  until  after  the 
Lord  was  risen  from  the  dead.  I  am  not  so  sure  that 
any  contrast  is  intended.  The  tense  {knvriaOrjaav)  in 
the  first  instance  is  indefinite,  and  allows  us  to  think 
that  the  application  of  the  psalm  was  an  after-thought ; 


94        IJ^J'    The  Standpoint  of  the  Author 

and  the  attitude  of  mind  which  was  on  the  watch  for 
fulfilments  of  scripture  came  later.  However  this  may 
be,  in  the  second  instance  at  least,  we  clearly  have 
what  professes  to  be  a  bit  of  autobiography — auto- 
biography in  which  the  writer  speaks  for  his  fellows 
as  well  as  himself. 

Exactly  similar  to  this  is  the  comment  on  the 
Triumphal  Entry,  and  the  passages  of  Scripture  which 
it  too  recalled : 

'  These  things  understood  not  his  disciples  at  the 
first :  but  when  Jesus  was  glorified,  then  remembered 
they  that  these  things  were  written  of  him,  and  that 
they  had  done  these  things  unto  him '  (xii.  1 6). 

It  is  an  apt  description  of  a  process  that  we  may  be 
sure  was  constantly  going  on  in  the  minds  of  the  first 
disciples.  It  is  a  rather  different  kind  of  allusion 
when  at  the  Last  Supper  the  Lord  explains  to  Peter 
in  reference  to  the  washing  of  the  disciples'  feet, 
*  What  I  do  thou  knowest  not  now ;  but  thou  shalt 
understand  hereafter.'  This  points  to  the  interpreta- 
tion which  was  to  come,  not  so  much  from  Scripture 
as  from  experience  and  reflection. 

The  last  discourses  contain  many  passages  of  this 
latter  kind.  Their  general  character  is  prophetic  ;  but 
the  writer  and  his  companions  had  lived  to  see  the 
prophecies  fulfilled.  It  is  very  natural,  and  we  cannot 
be  surprised  if  the  effect  of  the  fulfilment  is  traceable 
in  the  form  given  to  the  prediction.  The  spirit  in 
which  the  writer  looks  back  upon  the  events  that 
happened  after  the  Resurrection  is  that  expressed  in 


Passages  where  the  impression  is  indirect     95 

xiv.  29,  '  And  now  I  have  told  you  before  it  come  to 
pass,  that,  when  it  is  come  to  pass,  ye  may  believe.' 

Here  is  a  retrospect :  *  They  shall  put  you  out  of  the 
synagogues :  yea,  the  hour  cometh,  that  whosoever 
killeth  you  shall  think  that  he  offereth  service  unto 
God.  .  .  .  But  these  things  have  I  spoken  unto  you, 
that  when  their  hour  is  come,  ye  may  remember  them, 
how  that  I  told  you'  (xvi.  2,  4). 

And  this  is  another  :  *  Behold,  the  hour  cometh,  yea, 
is  come,  that  ye  shall  be  scattered,  every  man  to  his 
own,  and  shall  leave  me  alone'  (xvi.  32). 

A  later  stage  of  the  Apostles'  experience  is  reflected 
in  the  following :  '  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  that 
ye  shall  weep  and  lament,  but  the  world  shall  rejoice  : 
ye  shall  be  sorrowful,  but  your  sorrow  shall  be  turned 
into  joy.  A  woman  when  she  is  in  travail  hath  sorrow, 
because  her  hour  is  come :  but  when  she  is  delivered 
of  the  child,  she  remembereth  no  more  the  anguish, 
for  the  joy  that  a  man  is  born  into  the  world.  And  ye 
therefore  now  have  sorrow  :  but  I  will  see  you  again, 
and  your  heart  shall  rejoice,  and  your  joy  no  one 
taketh  away  from  you'  (xvi.  20-2). 

The  great  salient  fact  that  stood  out  in  the  experi- 
ence of  the  first  disciples  was  the  outpouring  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  and  its  effect  upon  themselves.  This  is 
vividly  reflected  in  a  series  of  passages  : 

'  These  things  have  I  spoken  unto  you,  while  yet 
abiding  with  you.  But  the  Comforter,  even  the  Holy 
Spirit,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name,  he 
shall  teach  you  all  things,  and  bring  to  your  remem- 
brance all  that  I  said  unto  you.  Peace  I  leave  with 
you ;  my  peace   I   give  unto  you  :   not  as  the  world 


96         ///.    The  Standpoint  of  the  Author 

giveth,  give  I  unto  you.  Let  not  your  heart  be 
troubled,  neither  let  it  be  fearful'  (xiv.  25-7). 

'  But  when  the  Comforter  is  come,  whom  I  will 
send  unto  you  from  the  Father,  even  the  Spirit  of 
truth,  which  proceedeth  from  the  Father,  he  shall  bear 
witness  of  me  :  and  ye  also  bear  witness,  because  ye 
have  been  with  me  from  the  beginning '  (xv.  26,  27). 

'  Howbeit  when  he,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  is  come,  he 
shall  guide  you  into  all  the  truth  :  for  he  shall  not 
speak  from  himself;  but  what  things  soever  he  shall 
hear,  these  shall  he  speak :  and  he  shall  declare  unto 
you  the  things  that  are  to  come.  He  shall  glorify 
me :  for  he  shall  take  of  mine,  and  shall  declare  it 
unto  you'  (xvi.  13,  14). 

It  might  be  said  that  these  passages  are  a  summary 
sketch  of  the  mental  history  of  the  Evangelist  from 
the  day  of  Pentecost  onwards.  They  show  him  to  us 
looking  back  upon  the  eventful  time  through  which  he 
had  passed  with  ever  broadening  intelligence.  They 
contain  the  whole  secret  of  the  way  in  which  he  came 
to  write  the  *  spiritual  Gospel.' 

I  am  aware  that  the  probative  force  of  the  pheno- 
mena which  I  have  been  reviewing  will  be  differently 
estimated.  I  should  myself  not  have  laid  so  much 
stress  upon  them  if  they  had  stood  alone,  or  if  they 
had  occurred  in  a  different  class  of  literature.  The 
novel  writers  and  imaginative  biographers  of  the 
present  day  make  a  point  of  keeping  up  the  illusion, 
of  only  allowing  the  supposed  author  to  use  the  lan- 
guage appropriate  to  the  exact  situation  in  which  he 
is  placed  at  the  time  when  he  is  conceived  to  be 
writing.  But  the  writers  of  the  first  century  a.d.  were 
not  so  scrupulous,  and  what  is  natural  to  us  would  be 


Passages  where  the  impression  is  indirect    97 

very  unusual  with  them.  Still  I  do  not  deny  that 
a  writer  whose  habit  of  mind  it  was  to  throw  himself 
back  into  an  assumed  position,  might  by  the  exercise 
of  a  special  gift  have  been  able  to  keep  up  the  position 
so  assumed.  But  in  the  case  before  us,  we  have  the 
instances  which  I  began  by  quoting  where  the  author 
claims  for  himself  or  others  claim  for  him  that  he  is 
recording  what  he  had  himself  heard  and  seen.  This 
at  once  puts  in  our  hands  a  far  simpler  and  easier 
hypothesis,  a  hypothesis  which  really  makes  no  demands 
upon  our  constructive  powers  at  all.  Whereas  it  is 
probable  that  not  one  ancient  in  a  thousand,  or  one 
in  ten  thousand,  would  have  written  as  the  writer 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel  has  done,  if  he  had  not  been  an 
eye-witness ;  it  would  have  been  only  the  natural  way 
for  him  to  write,  if  he  had  been  an  eye-witness.  This 
latter  hypothesis  therefore  seems  much  preferable  to 
the  other.  It  is  confirmed  by  the  really  remarkable 
consistency  with  which  the  point  of  view  is  carried 
out,  and  by  another  large  class  of  phenomena  which 
will  come  before  us  in  the  next  lecture. 

II.  The  Identity  of  the  Evaiigelist. 
Before  we  pass  on,  however,  it  may  be  convenient 
at  this  point  to  consider,  on  the  assumption  that  the 
author  of  the  Gospel  was  really  an  eye-witness  of  the 
events,  what  are  the  indications  as  to  his  personal 
identity.  If  we  confine  ourselves  to  those  contained 
in  the  Gospel  itself,  it  would  not  follow  with  any 
stringency  that  he  was  the  Apostle  John  the  son  of 
Zebedee.     The  portion  of  the  Gospel  that  contributes 

CR.  F.  G.  H 


98         ///.    The  Standpoint  of  the  Author 

most  to  the  identification  is  the  last  chapter,  the  scene 
by  the  Sea  of  GaHlee,  where  we  are  expressly  told 
that  the  sons  of  Zebedee  were  present  (xxi.  2).  But 
we  are  also  told  that  there  were  two  other  disciples 
of  whom  the  author  of  the  Gospel  may  have  been  one. 
If  we  begin  by  supposing — and  the  supposition  is  very 
natural — that  in  order  to  stand  in  the  intimate  relation 
in  which  he  appears  to  have  stood  to  Christ,  the 
author  must  have  been  an  Apostle,  then  by  a  process 
of  elimination  we  should  arrive  at  St.  John ;  and 
it  is  no  doubt  an  important  fact  that  in  this  way 
internal  and  external  evidence  would  converge  upon 
the  same  result.  But  if  we  look  at  some  sides  of 
the  internal  evidence,  and  bring  in  only  a  select  few 
of  the  indications  from  without,  another  hypothesis 
that  has  been  actually  put  forward  would  have  great 
claims  upon  our  attention.  It  is  not  on  the  face  of 
it  certain  that  'the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved'  must 
have  been  one  of  the  Twelve.  He  may  have  been 
what  might  perhaps  be  called  a  sort  of  supernumerary 
Apostle.  I  mean  that  he  may  have  been  one  who 
although,  perhaps  on  account  of  his  youth,  not 
actually  admitted  to  the  number  of  the  Twelve,  yet 
had  all — and  even  more  than  all — of  their  privi- 
leges. We  have  been  led  to  think  of  the  beloved 
disciple  as  a  youth  who,  so  far  as  he  could  help  it, 
never  left  his  Master's  side.  We  should  only  have 
to  subtract  a  couple  of  years,  and  the  young  Apostle 
of  eighteen  or  twenty  would  become  a  stripling — 
highly  favoured,  though  not  an  Apostle — of  sixteen  to 
eighteen,  or  even  fifteen  to  seventeen. 


The  Identity  of  the  Evangelist  99 

I  am  not  sure  that  this  point  of  the  youthfulness 
that  may  be  attributed  to  the  beloved  disciple  was 
much  brought  out  by  the  author  of  the  theory.  And 
yet  it  would  be  a  real  advantage.  We  are  told  that 
the  John  who  wrote  the  Gospel  lived  till  the  time  of 
Trajan  (i.  e.  till  98  a.d.).  In  that  case,  if  he  were  born 
about  II  or  12  a.d.,  he  need  not  have  been  more 
than  eighty-six  or  eighty-seven  at  the  time  of  his 
death  ;  the  main  body  of  the  Gospel  might  quite  well 
have  been  written  (probably  from  dictation)  eight  or 
ten  years  earlier,  and  the  Appendix  (chap,  xxi)  added 
when  the  writer  felt  his  strength  beginning  to  fail. 
All  these  would  be  quite  reasonable  dates ;  whereas 
if  the  writer  was  a  full  adult  in  the  years  27-9,  that 
would  make  him  rather  old  by  the  end  of  the  cen- 
tury. We  must  keep  down  the  dates  as  much  as  we 
rightly  can. 

But  it  is  time  that  I  gave  a  fuller  account  of  the 
theory  of  which  I  am  speaking,  as  it  was  put  forward 
by  its  author — in  some  ways  a  rather  eccentric  person — 
the  late  Dr.  Delff  of  Husum.  I  will  try  at  the  same 
time,  as  well  as  I  can,  to  balance  the  arguments  for 
and  against  it. 

Dr.  Delff  is  not  content  with  distinguishing  the 
beloved  disciple  from  the  Apostle.  For  him  the 
former  is  no  Galilean  at  all  but  a  native  of  Jerusalem; 
he  is  not  a  fisherman,  but  a  member  of  the  higher 
aristocracy,  not  only  acquainted  with  the  high  priest 
but  himself  belonging  to  one  of  the  high-priestly 
families.  It  was  through  this  connexion  that  Poly- 
crates,  bishop  of  Ephesus,  came  to  make  the  remark- 

H  2 


loo        ///.    The  Standpoint  of  the  Author 

able  statement  about  him  that  he  wore  the  frontlet  or 
golden  plate  {ro  irkrakov)  of  the  high  priest  (Eus. 
H.  E.  iii.  31.  3). 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  is  a  bold  reconstruction ; 
but  in  this  case  the  boldness  has  a  good  deal  of  justi- 
fication. There  are  a  number  of  very  tangible  data 
which  the  theory  works  up  into  a  coherent  whole. 

i.  The  theory  might  be  said  to  take  its  start  from 
John  xviii.  15,  '  And  Simon  Peter  followed  Jesus,  and 
so  did  another  disciple.  Now  that  disciple  was  known 
unto  the  high  priest,  and  entered  in  with  Jesus  into 
the  court  of  the  high  priest.'  It  is  natural  to  suppose 
that  the  unnamed  disciple  here  is  the  same  whose 
presence  is  hinted  at  so  mysteriously  throughout  the 
Gospel.  But,  if  that  is  so,  the  relation  in  which  he  is 
said  to  stand  to  the  high  priest  explains  at  once  a 
series  of  facts.  It  explains  how  it  was  that  the  Evan- 
gelist came  to  know  that  the  name  of  the  high  priest's 
servant,  whose  ear  had  been  cut  off,  was  Malchus  ;  and 
also  how  it  was  that  he  came  to  recognize  one  of  those 
who  questioned  Peter  as  a  kinsman  of  this  Malchus. 
It  explains  again  the  special  information  that  the 
Evangelist  seems  to  have  about  Nicodemus,  a  member 
of  the  Sanhedrin,  who  is  mentioned  by  name  in  three 
different  contexts  in  the  Gospel.  Along  with  this  it 
would  explain  the  special  information  which  the 
Evangelist  also  seems  to  possess  as  to  what  went  on 
at  meetings,  and  even  secret  meetings,  of  the  San- 
hedrin. We  have  a  graphic  account  of  the  debate  at 
one  such  meeting  in  vii.  45-52,  and  again  in  xi.  47-53  ; 
and  the  Gospel  has  some  precise  details   not  found 


The  Identity  oj  the  Evangelist  loi 

elsewhere  as  to  the  part  played  by  Annas,  as  well  as 
Caiaphas,  in  the  preliminary  examination  of  our  Lord. 

This  whole  group  of  facts  is  in  any  case  one  of 
which  we  must  take  notice.  In  any  case  it  forms  an 
important  element  in  the  portrait  that  we  are  to 
construct  for  ourselves  of  the  Evangelist,  even  if  we 
suppose  him  to  be  the  son  of  Zebedee.  There  is  no 
antecedent  reason  why  Zebedee  and  his  sons  should 
not  have  had  friends,  and  even  friends  in  high  places, 
in  Jerusalem.  It  would  seem  that  Zebedee  himself 
was  a  person  of  substance  :  he  has  *  hired  servants ' 
with  him  in  the  ship,  and  Salome — if  that  is  the  name 
of  his  wife — was  one  of  those  who  contributed  to  the 
support  of  Jesus  and  His  disciples.  We  must  also 
remember  that  the  practice  of  a  trade  or  handicraft 
was  not  held  to  be  derogatory  among  the  Jews  as  it 
was  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans.  There  is,  how- 
ever, also  the  other  possibility  that  the  acquaintance 
of  the  Evangelist  with  the  high  priest  is  not  to  be 
taken  too  strictly,  but  that  it  meant  rather  acquaintance 
with  some  member  of  his  household.  The  account  of 
what  happened  to  Peter  might  well  seem  to  be  told 
from  the  point  of  view  of  what  we  should  describe  as 
the  servants'  hall. 

ii.  Another  set  of  phenomena  which  Delff's  theory 
at  once  explains  is  the  extent  to  which  the  Gospel  is 
concerned  with  events  that  happened  in  Jerusalem 
and  Judaea.  Delff  himself  carries  out  this  with  a 
logical  severity  that  hardly  seems  necessary.  He  cuts 
out  all  the  Galilean  incidents  in  the  Gospel  as  later 
insertions.     Even  so  he    cannot    be    quite    thorough 


102        ///.    The  Standpoint  of  the  Author 

enough,  because  he  leaves  the  latter  half  of  chap,  i, 
which  introduces  to  us  the  unnamed  disciple  in  the 
company  of  Andrew  and  Peter,  natives  of  Bethsaida. 
This  disciple  and  Peter  were  evidently  friends  :  they 
lodged  together  in  Jerusalem  (xx.  2)  and  go  together 
to  the  tomb,  and  they  each  take  an  affectionate 
interest  in  the  other  (xxi.  20). 

This  last  point  is  in  agreement  with  the  way  in 
which  Peter  and  John  are  found  acting  together  in  the 
other  Gospels  and  in  the  Acts  (Mark  v.  'X,'],  &c. ;  Acts 
iii.  I,  11;  iv.  13;  viii.  14;  cf.  Gal.  ii.  9).  On  the 
other  hand  the  scene  at  the  foot  of  the  cross  (John 
xix.  26,  27)  would  seem  to  be  rather  in  favour  of  the 
Jerusalem  theory,  especially  if  we  are  to  connect  the 
words,  *  And  from  that  hour  the  disciple  took  her  unto 
his  own  (home),'  with  the  tradition  that  John  had 
a  house  in  Jerusalem, 

iii.  In  another  direction  Delff's  theory  fits  in  well 
with  some  portions  of  the  patristic  evidence.  We 
have  seen  how  it  would  account  for  the  curious 
expression  used  by  Polycrates  {area  195  a.  d.).  Delff 
thinks  that  the  beloved  disciple  must  have  actually 
performed  the  functions  of  the  high  priest.  The  high 
priest  only  wore  his  full  dress  on  the  Day  of  Atone- 
ment, but  on  an  emergency  his  place  might  be  taken 
for  him  by  a  substitute  ;  and  it  is  in  this  capacity  that 
John  of  Ephesus  is  supposed  to  have  acted.  That 
does  not  on  the  face  of  it  appear  very  probable ;  but 
we  can  more  easily  conceive  that  in  the  early  days, 
before  liturgical  details  were  settled,  and  when  the 
Christian  Church   had    not   yet  wholly  outgrown  its 


TJie  Identity  of  the  Evangelist  103 

Jewish  antecedents,  one  who  had  the  blood  of  high 
priests  in  his  veins  might  on  some  solemn  occasion 
(e.  g.  at  Easter)  have  assumed  a  part  of  his  distinctive 
dress. 

iv.  Yet  another  alleged  point  in  the  testimony  of 
Papias  would  be  explained  on  this  theory,  and  is  not 
easily  explained  on  the  view  which  identifies  the  John 
who  wrote  the  Gospel  with  the  son  of  Zebedee.  Since 
the  publication  of  De  Boor's  Fragment  (Cod.  Barocc. 
142  ^)  we  have  two  authorities  instead  of  one  for  the 
express  statement  that  Papias  in  his  second  book 
asserted  that  both  the  sons  of  Zebedee  were  '  slain  by 
the  Jews.'  When  attention  was  first  called  to  this 
statement,  the  tendency  among  scholars  was  to 
explain  it  away,  to  suppose  that  there  had  been  some 
corruption  of  the  text,  or  some  confusion  between 
John  the  Baptist  and  John  the  son  of  Zebedee.  Of 
course  there  may  have  been  something  of  the  kind  ; 
and  yet  the  statement  is  quite  explicit  as  it  stands,  and 
one  does  not  like  emending  away  just  the  words  that 
cause  a  difficulty.  Hence  there  is  an  increasing 
tendency  among  scholars  to  regard  the  statement  as 
having  some  real  foundation.  Schwartz,  the  editor  of 
Eusebius,  has  lately  put  forth  a  monograph  2,  the  whole 

^  Texte  u.  Untersuch.  v.  2,  p.  170.  The  other  authority  is  a  single 
MS.  (but  the  oldest  and  most  interesting)  of  the  ninth-century  writer 
Georgius  Monachus  or  Georgius  Hamartolus  (ed.  De  Boor,  p.  447 

['Idxjvwjs]    fxaprvpiov    KaTij^iaiTai,    where    the    Other    MSS.    have    ii>   (iprivij 

dvfnavaaTo).  The  question  of  the  relation  of  the  texts  is  judiciously 
discussed  by  De  Boor  (Preface,  pp.  Ix-lxxi),  but  the  fuller  statement 
of  particulars  is  reserved  for  a  third  volume. 

^   Ueber  den  Tod  der  Sbhne  Zebedaei  (Berlin,  1904). 


104        JJI'    T^^^  Standpoint  of  the  Author 

argument  of  which  turns  on  the  assumption  that  the 
statement  is  true.  If  it  were  true,  the  prediction  of 
our  Lord  in  Mark  x.  38,  39,  will  have  been  literally 
fulfilled  :  both  the  sons  of  Zebedee  will  have  suffered 
*  red  martyrdom,'  and  not  one  red  and  one  white. 
Wellhausen  is  among  those  who  think  that  this  was 
probably  the  case. 

V.  Now  Schwartz  assumes  that  if  John  perished  by 
the  sword  like  his  brother  James,  he  did  so  at  the 
same  time  and  at  the  hands  of  Herod  Agrippa  I,  in 
the  year  41.  Of  course  he  can  only  do  this  by 
throwing  over  the  data  in  the  Acts,  which  I  do  not 
think  that  he  is  warranted  in  doing.  I  have  little 
doubt  that  the  John  who  was  still  a  pillar  of  the 
Church  at  the  time  referred  to  in  Gal.  ii.  9  was  the 
son  of  Zebedee.  But  it  is  quite  credible  that  he  may 
have  perished,  if  not  at  the  same  time  as  James  the 
Elder,  yet  about  the  same  time  as  James  the  Brother 
of  the  Lord,  or  in  the  troublous  times  which  preceded 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 

vi.  If  the  younger  son  of  Zebedee  had  died  in  this 
or  some  other  way,  there  would  be  nothing  to  prevent 
us  from  supposing  that  the  John  who  took  up  his 
abode  at  Ephesus  was  the  beloved  disciple.  And  it 
would  really  simplify  the  history,  and  make  everything 
more  compact,  if  we  could  suppose  that  the  beloved 
disciple,  and  the  John  who  wrote  the  Gospel  and 
Epistles,  and  the  John  who  appears  to  have  called 
himself,  and  to  have  been  called  by  others  *  the 
Presbyter,'  were  one  and  the  same  person. 

vii.   It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  some  of  our  best 


The  Identity  of  the  Evangelist  105 

authorities,  while  they  leave  no  doubt  as  to  the  identifi- 
cation of  the  John  who  figured  so  conspicuously  at 
Ephesus  with  the  beloved  disciple,  abstain  from  ex- 
pressions that  would  identify  him  with  the  son  of 
Zebedee.  Irenaeus  most  often  calls  him  'the  disciple 
of  the  Lord,'  which  we  remember  is  the  very  phrase 
used  by  Papias  of  the  Presbyter.  He  also  more  than 
once  describes  him  as  having  lain  upon  the  breast  of 
the  Lord,  but  he  nowhere  (I  believe)  speaks  of  him  as 
one  of  the  Twelve  or  as  the  son  of  Zebedee.  Poly- 
crates  uses  the  same  designation,  'John  who  lay  upon 
the  breast  of  the  Lord  ' ;  and  the  Muratorian  Fragment 
speaks  of  him  as  '  one  of  the  disciples ' :  but  neither  of 
these  witnesses  ever  calls  him  an  Apostle.  Irenaeus, 
however,  does  perhaps  hint  at  this  title  where  he  says 
that  the  Church  at  Ephesus,  '  having  been  founded  by 
Paul,  and  John  having  resided  among  them  until  the 
time  of  Trajan,  is  a  true  witness  of  the  tradition  of 
the  Apostles'  (Eus.  H.  E.  iii.  23.  4).  Clement  of 
Alexandria  also  and  Tertullian  unequivocally  call 
John  an  Apostle. 

viii.  If  these  expressions  had  stood  alone,  there 
need  be  no  great  difficulty.  We  may  be  pretty  sure 
that  the  beloved  disciple,  even  if  he  had  not  been  one 
of  the  original  Twelve,  would  be  called  an  Apostle  in 
the  wider  sense,  like  St.  Paul  and  St.  Barnabas  and 
James  the  Brother  of  the  Lord.  And  it  would  be  only 
natural  that  he  should  seem  to  step  into  the  place 
of  the  older  John  (on  the  hypothesis  of  his  martyr- 
dom), just  as  James  the  Lord's  Brother  in  a  manner 
stepped  into  the  place  of  the  older  James. 


io6        ///.    The  Standpoint  of  the  Author 

It  Is  worth  while  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  title 
'Apostle'  was  used  more  freely  in  the  early  days  of 
the  Church  than  we  are  in  the  habit  of  using  it.  It 
was  not  till  about  the  end  of  the  second  century  that 
(except  in  the  case  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  Barnabas 
and  one  or  two  others)  it  came  to  be  as  a  rule 
narrowed  down  to  the  Twelve.  In  the  earliest  usage 
of  all  the  word  had  its  proper  meaning  of  '  one  who 
is  sent  on  a  mission.'  But  this  usage  was  gradually 
lost  sight  of,  and  it  took  the  place  of  the  primitive 

In  view  of  this  history  of  the  terms,  it  will  be 
understood  how  easily  one  who  was  in  the  position 
of  the  beloved  disciple  would  come  to  be  spoken  of 
as  an  Apostle,  and  in  time  to  be  confused  with  the 
older  Apostles  who  bore  the  same  name.  In  such 
a  process  there  would  be  no  need,  as  Harnack  does, 
to  bring  in  the  hypothesis  of  fraud  ;  every  step  in  the 
process  would  be  really  innocent  and  natural.  Har- 
nack of  course  gets  into  his  difficulties  by  minimizing 
the  designation  '  disciple  of  the  Lord '  as  applied  to 
John  the  Presbyter,  who  is  also  John  of  Ephesus. 
One  who  stood  to  the  Lord  in  the  relation  of  the 
beloved  disciple  would  have  a  right  to  the  name 
Apostle  which  the  Presbyter,  as  Harnack  conceives 
him,  would  not. 

ix.  So  far  it  would  seem  that  a  really  strong  case 
can  be  made  out  for  distinguishing  the  Evangelist 
from  die  son  of  Zebedee  and  identifying  him  with  the 
beloved  disciple.  My  wish  is  not  to  make  out  a  case 
either  way,  but  to  state  the  facts  as  impartially  as  I  can. 


The  Identity  of  the  Evangelist  107 

From  this  point  of  view,  there  seem  to  be  two  serious 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  Delffs  hypothesis. 

The  first  is  that  it  puts  asunder  two  sets  of  phe- 
nomena that  we  feel  sure  ought  to  be  combined.  We 
have  seen  that  the  Gospel  represents  the  beloved 
disciple  and  St.  Peter  as  close  friends.  And  we  have 
also  seen  that  the  other  Gospels,  the  Acts  and,  we 
might  add,  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  represent 
St.  Peter  and  St.  John  as  constantly  acting  together. 
It  may  indeed  just  be  said  that  this  joint  action  is 
a  sort  of  official  relation,  which  is  a  different  thing 
from  the  private  friendship  implied  in  the  Gospel. 
And  yet  we  cannot  doubt  that  the  more  natural  and 
obvious  view  would  be  to  regard  the  later  relation 
as  the  direct  continuation  of  the  earlier,  and  so  to 
identify  the  beloved  disciple  with  the  leading  Apostle. 
DelfTs  theory  would  make  two  pairs,  who  would  be 
too  much  the  doubles  of  each  other. 

X.  And  another  difficulty,  or  set  of  difficulties,  turns 
round  the  statement  of  De  Boor's  Fragment.  It  is 
certainly  strange  that  this  statement  appears  in  no 
other  early  authority,  and  especially  that  no  hint  of 
it  is  found  in  Eusebius.  I  am  not  sure  that  this  would 
weigh  with  me  so  much  as  it  would  with  others,  because 
I  always  discount  the  argument  from  silence,  even 
where  it  is  apparently  strong,  as  it  is  in  the  present 
instance. 

But  there  is  something  more  than  silence.  The 
common  tradition  of  the  church  did  not  ascribe  to 
St.  John  a  violent  death.  And  we  cannot  escape  the 
inference  by  saying  that  the  common  tradition  relates 


io8        ///.    The  Standpoint  of  the  Author 

to  John  of  Ephesus  and  not  to  the  son  of  Zebedee ; 
because  the  earHest  authority  for  the  tradition,  the 
Apocryphal  Acts  of  John,  a  second-century  work, 
without  any  ambiguity  identifies  the  two. 

xi.  We  might  perhaps  sum  up  the  whole  case  thus. 

The  Life  of  the  Evangelist  falls  into  three  periods : 
first,  the  period  covered  by  the  Gospel  in  which  he 
appears  as  the  beloved  disciple;  then,  at  the  end  of 
his  career,  the  period  during  which  he  appears  as  John 
of  Ephesus  :  and,  between  these  two,  the  period  of 
some  forty  years  which  connects  them  together.  Now 
we  might  say  of  Delff's  theory,  that  it  gives  a  quite 
satisfactory  account  of  the  first  period,  and  also  in 
most  ways  of  the  last,  and  that  in  particular  it  enables 
us  to  work  in  the  statement  as  to  the  death  of  the  two 
sons  of  Zebedee  ;  but  that  its  difficulties  come  out 
chiefly  in  regard  to  the  connexion  between  the  first 
stage  of  the  history  and  the  last. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  common  view  gives  what 
I  think  is  really  on  the  whole  as  good  an  account  of 
the  first  period,  and  raises  no  special  difficulties  as  to 
the  second,  but  it  does  leave  some  obscurities  which 
with  our  present  knowledge  it  is  difficult  to  clear  away 
as  to  the  third.  And  it  also  leaves  the  alleged 
statement  of  Papias  an  enigma  for  which  we  have 
no  certain  solution. 

At  the  same  time,  although  the  cohesion  is  on  either 
view  not  quite  complete,  it  is  in  each  case  far  too 
complete  to  be  rejected  in  the  interests  of  an  agno- 
sticism which  only  presents  no  target  for  objections 
because  it  has  no  tangible  form  or  substance. 


LECTURE    IV 

THE    PRAGMATISM    OF    THE    GOSPEL 

Different  Kinds  of  Precision  in  Detail. 

I  HOPE  the  title  that  I  have  given  to  this  lecture  is 
not  an  affectation.  The  word  *  Pracrmatism '  is  more 
common  in  German  than  in  English.  In  English  it 
is  chiefly  used  as  the  name  for  a  particular  kind  of 
philosophy  which  lays  stress  upon  conduct  or  practice 
rather  than  theory.  But  we  want  the  word,  or  some- 
thing like  it,  in  criticism  as  well  as  in  philosophy.  We 
want  a  word  which  shall  express  a  tendency  in  a  given 
writer  or  a  given  book,  without  begging  any  questions 
as  to  the  relation  between  this  tendency  in  the  mind  of 
the  writer  and  the  facts  that  he  professes  to  describe ; 
I  mean  the  tendency  to  throw  his  thoughts  into  the 
form  of  concrete  pictorial  history,  whether  that  history 
is  real  or  imagined.  It  is  in  this  sense  that  I  use  the 
word  :  I  use  it  to  describe  a  very  marked  characteristic 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  the  abundance  of  detail — to  all 
appearance  precise  detail — with  which  it  presents  its 
pictures.  But  I  do  not  as  yet  say  anything  further  as 
to  the  nature  of  this  detail  or  the  inference  to  be  drawn 
from  it. 

One  of  the  most  uncompromising  critics  of  the 
Gospel  ^  calls  this  apparent  precision,  more  especially 
in  the  notes  of  place  and  time,  a  '  trump-card '  in  the 

^  Wrede,  Charakter  und  Tendenz  d.Johannesevangeliums  (Tubingen 
and  Leipzig,  1903),  p.  25. 


no       IV.    The  Pragmatism  of  the  Gospel 

hands  of  the  defenders  of  the  Gospel.  He  goes  on  to 
give  a  meagre  list,  just  of  some  of  these  notes  of  place 
and  time,  and  nothing  else.  His  only  comment  on 
them  is  that  they  '  fail  to  Impart  to  the  presentation 
life,  colour,  and  movement.'  As  though  life,  in  the 
sense  of  active  life,  and  movement  were  the  only 
guarantees  of  reality.  It  is  true  that  St.  John  is  not 
what  we  should  call  a  dramatic  writer;  his  narrative 
has  not  rapidity  of  movement.  He  is  contemplative 
rather  than  energetic,  and  yet  he  has  a  quiet  intensity 
of  vision  that  is  in  its  way  not  less  valuable.  He 
must  be  judged  according  to  his  type  :  we  do  not 
(e.  g.)  apply  to  a  Maeterlinck  the  same  sort  of  measure 
as  to  a  Stanley  Weyman. 

Wrede's  is  a  specimen  of  what  I  consider  poor 
criticism.  It  is  in  striking  contrast  to  that  which 
Dr.  Drummond  has  devoted  to  the  same  subject. 
Dr.  Drummond  discusses  in  his  judicial  manner  this 
phenomenon  that  I  have  called  '  Pragmatism.'  He 
begins  by  noting  how  the  writer  'specifies  particular 
days,  for  no  apparent  reason  except  that  he  remembered 
them,  and  sometimes  even  mentions  the  hour.  He 
often  names  the  disciple  who  was  the  speaker,  even 
when  the  remark  is  not  of  great  consequence.'  We 
have  said  enough  on  this  part  of  the  subject.  But  he 
not  only  specifies  times  and  persons  but  also  places, 
with  which  he  connects  various  incidents,  'frequently 
for  no  discoverable  reason  beyond  the  fact  itself.' 
Then  again  there  Is,  generally  speaking,  the  graphic 
character  of  the  work.  On  this  Dr.  Drummond  has 
some  discriminating  remarks : 


Different  Kinds  of  Precision  in  Detail      iii 

*  The  Gospel  is  sometimes  spoken  of  as  though  it 
were  a  monotonous  unfolding  of  the  Logos  doctrine, 
and  brought  before  us  a  number  of  shadowy  puppets, 
marked  by  no  distinguishing  features.  I  cannot  but 
think  that  this  view  is  partly  owing  to  the  preposses- 
sion of  critical  dogmatism,  but  partly  also  to  the 
identity  of  style  and  tone  which,  wherever  you  may 
open  the  book,  at  once  betrays  the  author.  The 
simplicity  is  not  the  simplicity  of  Genesis  or  Homer, 
in  which  we  forget  all  but  the  persons  and  events  that 
are  brought  before  us ;  the  dramatic  power  is  not 
that  of  Shakespeare,  in  which  the  author  is  hidden 
behind  his  own  creations.  On  the  contrary,  every- 
thing seems  more  or  less  transfused  with  the  indi- 
viduality of  the  writer;  and  I  think  this  fact  sometimes 
causes  us  to  overlook  the  wonderful  variety  of  character 
that  passes  before  us,  and  the  graphic  nature  of  some 
of  the  descriptions,  which  imprints  the  scenes  for  ever- 
more on  the  imagination'  {JFhe  Character  arid  Author- 
ship, &c.,  p.  376). 

I  am  not  sure  that  we  might  not  say  that,  so  far  as 
the  narrative  is  concerned,  the  simplicity  is  really  like 
that  of  Genesis  :  there  is  a  Biblical  style  of  narration, 
which  descended  down  the  centuries,  and  which  the 
writer  has  thoroughly  assimilated.  But  then  his  own 
personality  must  be  added  to  this,  and  there  was 
much  more  in  his  mind  besides  the  impulse  of  simple 
narration.  It  is,  as  we  shall  see,  the  discourses,  and 
especially  the  longer  discourses,  in  which  this  personal 
element  comes  out  most  strongly,  and  which  make  it 
seem  so  dominant.  But  Dr.  Drummond  is  certainly 
right  in  laying  stress  on  the  '  variety  of  character  that 
passes  before  us,  and  the  graphic  nature  of  some  of 
the  descriptions.' 


112       IF.    The  Pragmatism  of  the  Gospel 

But  when  he  has  said  this,  Dr.  Drummond  turns 
round  upon  himself,  and  proceeds  to  discount  the 
inference  that  miofht  be  drawn  from  these  characteristics 
of  the  Gospel.  While  allowing  that  they  fit  in  ex- 
cellently with  the  external  evidence,  he  will  not  urge 
them  as  an  independent  proof  of  authorship,  because 
*  the  introduction  of  names  and  details  is  quite  in 
accordance  with  the  usage  of  Apocryphal  composition.' 

This  is  true,  and  the  examples  given  are  quite  to 
the  point.  The  Apocryphal  Gospels  and  Acts  are 
plentifully  sprinkled  with  names.  We  observe,  how- 
ever, that  names  of  places  are  somewhat  less  common 
than  names  of  persons ;  and  where  there  is  any  real 
precision  in  the  use  of  place-names,  an  inference  in 
regard  to  the  author  may  often  be  fairly  deduced  from 
it,  and  as  a  matter  of  fact  has  in  a  number  of  cases 
been  successfully  so  deduced  ^  It  would  be  unsafe  to 
draw  a  conclusion  simply  from  the  presence  of  precise 
details.  But  all  details  are  not  alike ;  and  when  they 
come  to  be  critically  tested,  they  will  soon  be  found 
to  fall  into  two  classes — one  that  admits  of  verification 
and  is  valuable,  and  the  other  that  is  soon  exposed  as 
worthless. 

One  of  the  parallels  for  the  Fourth  Gospel  specially 
put  forward  from  this  point  of  view  was  the  Apocryphal 
Gospel  of  Matthew,  and  I  took  some  little  pains  to 
test  this  in  the  pages  of  the  Expositor  (1892,  p.  172  ff.). 
It  was  quickly  found  to  teem  with  anachronisms  and 

*  An  excellent  example  is  the  treatment  of  the  Acts  of  Paul  and 
Thecla  by  Professor  W.  M.  Ramsay  in  The  Church  in  the  Roman 
Empire,  pp.  375-428. 


Different  Kinds  of  Precision  in  Detail      113 

confusions.  Professing  to  describe  the  circumstances 
of  the  birth  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  it  spoke  of  her  father's 
almsgiving  in  terms  borrowed  from  the  practice  of  the 
Christian  Church.  There  were  supposed  to  be  schools 
for  girls  in  the  Temple,  modelled  upon  the  convent 
schools  of  the  fifth  century.  The  father  and  mother 
of  the  Virgin  were  represented  as  meeting  at  the 
'Golden  Gate'  of  the  Temple.  A  gate  bearing  that 
name  may  be  seen  at  the  present  day ;  but  it  probably 
owes  its  name  to  a  corruption  {aurea  =  oipaia)  ;  and 
though  the  modern  gate,  which  can  be  traced  back 
to  the  time  of  Heraclius,  is  supposed  to  represent  the 
Beautiful  Gate  of  Herod's  Temple,  it  certainly  occupies 
a  different  position.  The  Gospel  contains  a  developed 
legend  of  the  Descent  into  Egypt,  which  is  also 
garnished  with  topographical  details.  These,  how- 
ever, cannot  be  worked  into  a  consistent  itinerary, 
and  an  official  title  introduced  into  the  story  belongs 
rather  to  the  period  after  Constantine  than  to  the 
time  of  Augustus. 

Does  the  Fourth  Gospel  present  anything  at  all 
analogous  to  this  ?  One  or  two  mistakes  have  been 
attributed  to  the  author  which  are  not  seriously 
maintained  at  the  present  time.  The  only  supposed 
anachronism  that  does  not  stand  refuted  is  one  recently 
put  forward  by  Furrer  the  eminent  geographer.  In 
an  interesting  article  on  the  topographical  data  in  the 
GospeP  he  gives  them  in  general  the  praise  of  accuracy. 
He  himself,  however,  regards  the  Gospel  as  a  work  of 


1  ( 


Das  Geographische   im    Evangelium   nach  Johannes,'  in  the 
Zeitschr.f.  neuiiesi.  Wiss.^  1902,  p.  257  ff. 


I 


114       ^^'    ^^^  Pragmatism  of  the  Gospel 

the  second  century,  and  he  sees  an  indication  of  this 
in  the  name  *  Sea  of  Tiberias  '  for  '  Sea  of  Galilee  '  or 
'  of  Gennesaret'  Dr.  Furrer  points  out  that  this  last 
form  ('  Sea  of  Gennesar '  or  '  Gennesaritis ')  is  found 
in  the  writers  of  the  first  century,  while  '  Sea  of 
Tiberias'  became  the  regular  designation  in  the  second 
century,  and  from  that  time  onwards.  It  is  found  in 
the  Greek  writer  Pausanias  (who  wrote  in  the  middle 
of  the  century,  under  Hadrian  and  the  Antonines),  and 
consistently  in  the  Talmud.  We  may  observe  that  in 
any  case  the  Gospel  was  written  quite  late  in  the  first 
century ;  and  the  way  in  which  the  name  is  introduced 
the  first  time  it  is  mentioned  would  seem  to  point 
exactly  to  the  period  of  transition  from  the  one  form 
to  the  other.  John  vi.  i  runs  thus :  '  After  these 
things  Jesus  went  away  to  the  other  side  of  the  sea 
of  Galilee,  which  is  the  sea  of  Tiberias'  {nkpav  ttjs 
6aXd(raT]s  T^y  FaXiXaid?  r^y  Ti^epidSos).  There  is 
perhaps  something  a  little  awkward  and  unusual  in 
the  apposition,  which,  however,  does  not  justify  the 
striking  out  of  one  of  the  two  names  as  a  gloss,  against 
all  the  authorities  \ 

Another  point  made  by  Furrer  is  that  in  xii.  21 
Bethsaida  is  called  '  Bethsaida  of  Galilee,'  whereas, 
according  to  Josephus,  Galilee  ended  with  the  right 
bank  of  the  Jordan,  and  Bethsaida  is  on  the  left  bank. 
Josephus,  however,  is  by  no  means  precise  in  his  usage, 
as  he  twice  speaks  of  Gamala  as  in  Galilee,  which  is 
much  further  away  on  the  other  side  of  the  lake. 

^  Cf.  Drummond,  p.  366  f. ;  and  the  writer's  Sacred  Sites  of  the 
Gospels^  P-  95- 


Different  Kinds  of  Precision  in  Detail      115 

Professor  von  Dobschiitz  treats  as  an  anachronism 
the  allusions  (John  ix.  22  ;  xii.  42)  to  expulsion  from 
the  synagogue  as  practised  upon  the  followers  of  Jesus 
during  His  lifetime.  But  this  is  surely  very  gratuitous. 
Partly  the  argument  goes  upon  the  assumption  that 
the  extreme  penalty  must  have  been  always  inflicted. 
Partly  it  seems  to  imply  that  excommunication  was 
too  great  a  punishment  for  the  disciples,  at  the  very 
time  when  death  itself  was  threatened  against  the 
Master. 

I  hardly  know  whether  I  ought  to  mention  as  a 
fourth  example  that  is  at  the  present  time  seriously 
alleged,  the  notion  that  the  phrase  'being  high  priest 
that  year'  (xi.  49,  51),  is  derived  from  the  fact  that 
the  Asiarch  acting  as  high  priest  in  the  worship  of 
the  Emperor  held  office  for  a  single  year\  It  is  far 
more  probable  that  the  phrase  is  connected  with  the 
deep  sense  which  the  writer  of  the  Fourth  Gospel 
shows  of  the  significance  of  particular  times.  I  take 
it  to  be  the  counterpart  of  the  often  recurring  words, 
'  the  hour  had  not  yet  come,'  '  the  hour  is  come.' 

So  that  the  four  precarious  examples  really  shrink 
up  to  one,  the  first,  and  that  is  explainable  without 
any  straining.  There  is  no  anachronism  ;  but  at  the 
time  when  the  Evangelist  wrote  the  usage  was 
changing,  and  he  was  aware  of  this,  and  expressed 
the  fact  in  his  text. 

And  now  let  us  consider  what  there  is  to  be  said  on 

the  other  side — -for  the  Gospel  from  this  same  point 

'  H.  J.  Holtzmann,  ad  loc,  and  Einleitung^  ed.  :;,  p.  469  :  cf. 
Drummond,  p.  437  f. 

I  2 


ii6       IV.    The  Pragmatism  of  the  Gospel 

of  view  of  truth  to  a  particular  period.  Is  the  Fourth 
Gospel  in  the  main  true  to  the  period  which  it  pro- 
fesses to  describe  ? 

This  is  a  question  that  should  not  be  difficult  to 
answer.     It  should  be  less  difficult  than  in  the  case 
of  most  periods,  because  as  a  rule  one  period  shades 
gradually  and  imperceptibly  into  another,   and  there 
is  a  more  or  less  prolonged  transition.    But  the  history 
of  Judaism  and  Christianity  in  the  first  century  of  our 
era  is  not  like  this.      There  we  have  one  great  cata- 
strophe standing  out  in  the  boldest  possible  way  and 
dividing   what   goes   before   from   what  comes  after. 
The   destruction  of  Jerusalem   by   Titus  completely 
altered  the  conditions  of  Judaism,  and  altered  no  less 
the   conditions  of   Christianity  both   in  itself  and  in 
relation   to   Judaism.      We   have   to    remember   that 
Judaism  as  it  existed  up  to  that  date — from  the  time 
of  Josiah  to  the  year  70  a.  d. — had  been  the  most 
centralized  religion  of  the  ancient  world.     Its  system 
of  worship,  its  hierarchy,  and  what  remained  to  it  of 
self-government,  all  had  a  single  centre  in  the  holy 
place  and  the  holy  city,  the  temple  and  Jerusalem. 
It   is   true   that  there   was  the  newer   institution  of 
synagogues,  which  was  destined  to  play  such  an  im- 
portant part  in  the  Judaism  of  the  future;    but  this 
was  as  yet  quite  subordinate,   existing  side  by  side 
with    the    temple    worship,    but    not    consciously   re- 
garded as  a  substitute  for  it. 

Now  with  one  single  stroke  the  whole  of  this 
temple  system,  the  hierarchy,  and  the  Sanhedrin, 
as  hitherto  constituted,  came  to  an  end.     It  was  not 


Different  Kinds  of  Precision  in  Detail      117 

that  it  went  on  with  modifications,  but  it  was  destroyed 
root  and  branch. 

At  the  same  time  Christianity  broke  loose  from 
Judaism  more  thoroughly  than  it  had  ever  done 
before.  Henceforth  the  dominant  forces  in  the  Church 
were  Gentile,  not  Jewish.  In  particular  the  last  shreds 
of  the  idea  of  a  political  Messiah  were  thrown  off. 

These  considerations  supply  us  with  abundant  means 
of  testing  the  picture  of  the  time  that  we  have  in 
the  Fourth  Gospel.  We  can  easily  determine  whether 
its  features  correspond  to  the  state  of  things  in  the 
first  half  of  the  first  century  or  at  its  end.  What  we 
have  chiefly  to  ask  ourselves  is,  does  the  Fourth 
Gospel  presuppose  a  centralized  religion  or  a  de- 
centralized ?  We  may  discuss  this  in  relation  to  (i) 
the  pilgrimages  to  Jerusalem  and  the  Jewish  feasts; 
(ii)  the  detailed  ceremonies  connected  with  those 
feasts  ;  (iii)  the  temple  itself ;  (iv)  the  state  of  sects 
and  parties ;  (v)  the  Messianic  expectation. 

i.  Pilgrimages. 

It  is  characteristic  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  as  com- 
pared with  the  common  matter  of  the  Synoptics,  that 
it  alone  represents  our  Lord  as  making  a  number  of 
pilgrimages  to  Jerusalem  for  the  express  purpose  of 
attending  the  Jewish  feasts.  The  Synoptic  narrative 
mentions  only  a  single  Passover  at  the  very  end  of  our 
Lord's  public  ministry,  which  led  to  His  arrest  and 
death.  St.  John  mentions  three  Passovers  as  falling 
in  the  course  of  the  ministry :  one  soon  after  it  may 
be  said  to  have  begun,  one  in  the  middle,  and  one  at 


ii8       IV.    The  Pragmatism  of  the  Gospel 

the  end.  Beside  this  there  is  an  unnamed  feast  in 
V.  I  ;  there  is  a  Feast  of  Tabernacles  which  our  Lord 
attends  in  vii.  2,  lo;  and  the  Feast  of  Dedication  is 
expressly  mentioned  in  x.  22. 

It  is  somewhat  surprising  that  Dr.  Drummond,  who 
takes  in  general  so  favourable  a  view  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  should  seem  to  be  in  doubt  as  to  these  visits 
and  these  feasts,  and  should  sum  up  rather  against 
them  ^  I  must  not  stay  now  to  go  fully  into  the 
question  of  their  historical  character,  which  will  come 
before  us  again.  But,  speaking  broadly,  I  may  point 
to  the  improbability  that  a  pious  Jew,  within  the 
Holy  Land  and  not  a  member  of  the  Dispersion, 
would  neglect  to  attend  the  feasts  for  so  long  a  time 
and  in  the  course  of  a  religious  mission  addressed 
directly  to  his  countrymen.  I  must  needs  think  it 
wholly  improbable.  And  apart  from  this  improbability, 
we  should  have  to  account  for  the  determined  hostility 
of  the  authorities  at  Jerusalem,  which  had  manifested 
itself  before  the  last  Passover,  and  which  came  to 
a  head  in  proposals  of  betrayal  so  soon  after  its  victim 
had  set  foot  in  Jerusalem. 

However  this  may  be — and  I  reserve  the  fuller 
discussion  for  the  present — in  any  case  it  must  be 
allowed  that  the  narrative  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  is 
in  the  strictest  accordance  with  the  religious  customs 
of  the  time  to  which  it  relates,  and  not  in  accordance 
with  those  at  the  time  when  the  Gospel  was  written. 
We  must  at  least  set  down  this  fact  as  markedly  to 
its  credit. 

*  pp.  42-6. 


119 


ii.   Ceremo7iies. 

The  effect  of  this  is  heightened  when  we  further 
observe  that  the  feasts  are  more  than  once  not 
mentioned  barely,  but  with  some  Httle  allusion  that 
agrees  well  with  what  we  know  of  them  from  other 
sources. 

I  will  not  lay  much  stress  upon  what  is  said  of  the 
first  Passover  in  chap,  ii,  because  it  might  be  thought 
that  the  account  of  the  cleansing  of  the  Temple  is 
simply  derived  from  the  Synoptics,  although  in  them 
it  appears  at  a  later  period.  It  is,  however,  worth 
while  to  point  out  the  specially  graphic  delineation  in 
the  Fourth  Gospel  (the  upsetting  of  the  money-changers' 
piles  of  coin,  and  the  address  to  the  sellers  of  doves, 
whose  commodities  could  not  be  overturned  or  driven 
out).  Little  touches  of  this  kind  acquire  an  increased 
importance  from  the  fact  that  the  marketing  in  the 
temple  courts,  even  if  it  survived  the  drastic  treat- 
ment described  in  the  Gospel,  in  any  case  did  not 
survive  the  events  of  70  a.  d. 

There  is  nothing  very  special  in  connexion  with 
the  unnamed  feast ;  and  the  Passover  of  vi.  4  is 
mentioned  only  by  the  way.  But  in  the  account  of 
the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  there  is  a  precise  touch  in 
vii.  37,  'on  the  last  day,  the  great  day  of  the  feast.' 
This  shows  accurate  knowledge,  because  the  last  day 
was  kept  as  a  sabbath  with  an  '  holy  convocation ' 
(Lev.  xxiii.  36).  Whether,  as  many  have  supposed, 
our  Lord's  words  on  this  day  ('If  any  man  thirst, 
let  him  come  unto   me,  and  drink  ')  were  suggested 


I20       IV.    The  Pragmatism  of  the  Gospel 

by   the    libations   of  water   from   Siloam  poured  out 

during  the  feast,  is  a  question  of  association  that  is 

hardly  capable  of  proof,  but  may  be  true  ^. 

There  is  nice  accuracy  in  the  picture  presented  by 

xi.  55-7  : 

'Now  the  passover  of  the  Jews  was  at  hand: 
and  many  went  up  to  Jerusalem  out  of  the  country 
before  the  passover,  to  purify  themselves.  They 
sought  therefore  for  Jesus,  and  spake  one  with 
another,  as  they  stood  in  the  temple,  What  think  ye  ? 
That  he  will  not  come  to  the  feast  ?  Now  the  chief 
priests  and  the  Pharisees  had  given  commandment, 
that,  if  any  man  knew  where  he  was,  he  should  shew 
it,  that  they  might  take  him.' 

The  strictest  ritualistic  purity  was  required  of  those 
who  took  part  in  the  feast.  '  Every  man,'  said  R. 
Isaac,  *  is  bound  to  purify  himself  for  the  feast'  (Light- 
foot,  Hor.  Hebr.  ad  loc).  The  purifying  might  take 
quite  seven  days,  and  during  this  time  the  pilgrims 
to  the  feast  would  be  standing  about  and  often  con- 
versing among  themselves,  and  the  rumours  of  the 
day  would  circulate  freely  among  them. 

There  are  several  pointed  allusions  in  the  Gospel 
to  the  laws  of  Levitical  purity.  The  mention  of  the 
water-jars  at  the  miracle  of  Cana  is  one ;  the  dispute 
of  John's  disciples  with  a  Jew  about  purifying  is  perhaps 
another ;  we  have  just  had  a  third  ;  and  a  fourth  is 
in  xviii.  28,  where  the  Sanhedrists  are  prevented  from 
entering  the  praetorium,  in  order  not  to  incur  defile- 
ment, and  so  be  prevented  from  eating  the  passover  ^. 

*  It  is  denied  by  Holtzmann,  but  approved  by  Westcott. 
^  For  a  discussion  of  the  nature  of  this  defilement  see  Chwolson, 
Das  letzte  Passamahl  Chris ti,  p.  56  ff. 


Ceremonies  121 

These  allusions  are  really,  if  we  think  of  it,  very 
striking.  They  fit  into  the  narrative  with  perfect  ease 
and  appropriateness  ;  and  they  are  admirably  natural 
if  the  author  of  the  Gospel  was  really  St.  John,  a 
Christian  brought  up  as  a  Jew,  and  even  as  it  would 
seem  in  some  way  personally  connected  with  the 
priesthood,  who  had  been  himself  in  the  company 
of  Jesus,  had  himself  held  intercourse  with  disciples 
of  the  Baptist,  and  himself  moved  about  among  the 
crowds  and  heard  their  comments.  It  is  a  wholly 
different  thing  if  we  are  to  suppose  that  all  these 
touches  were  thrown  in  by  a  Christian  of  the  third 
generation,  who  could  only  arrive  at  them  by  study 
and  imagination. 

Chwolson  says  expressly  :  *  After  the  destruction  of 
the  Temple  all  the  regulations  about  cleanness  and 
uncleanness,  which  were  closely  connected  with  the 
sacrificial  system,  fell  into  disuse  ^' 

The  last  instance  that  I  will  notice  is  xix.  31,  which 
is  full  of  the  same  truth  of  detail. 

*  The  Jews  therefore,  because  it  was  the  Preparation, 
that  the  bodies  should  not  remain  on  the  cross  upon 
the  sabbath  (for  the  day  of  that  sabbath  was  a  high 
day),  asked  of  Pilate  that  their  legs  might  be  broken, 
and  that  they  might  be  taken  away.' 

The  exact  nature  of  the  'high  day'  will  depend 
upon  the  day  of  the  month,  which  is  disputed.  I  have 
little  doubt  that  on  St.  John's  reckoning  it  would  be 
Nisan  15,  the  first  day  of  the  feast  of  unleavened 
bread,  which  was  to  be  marked  by  an  '  holy  convoca- 

'  Op.  cit.  p.  49. 


122       IV.    The  Pragmatism  of  the  Gospel 

tion '  (Lev.  xxiii.  7),  and  which,  coinciding  with  the 
sabbath,  would  make  it  a  double  sabbath.  It  would 
also  be  the  day  for  the  offering  of  the  peace-offering 
or  Chagigah.  This  would  be  on  the  Saturday  morn- 
ing :  when  the  Jewish  day  began  (at  sunset  on  Friday) 
the  Jews  would  be  engaged  on  the  paschal  meal. 

iii.   The  Temple. 

The  references  to  the  Temple  in  the  Fourth  Gospel 
are  marked  by  the  same  minute  accuracy. 

There  is  a  remarkable  allusion  in  ii.  20,  where  we 
might  paraphrase  the  force  of  the  aorist  by  saying 
in  our  own  idiom,  *  it  took  forty-six  years  to  build  this 
temple.'  The  calculation  is  exact,  though  we  must 
suppose  the  word  for  temple  {yads,  '  the  holy  place ') 
to  be  used  somewhat  loosely.  The  building  of  the 
Temple  appears  to  have  been  begun  about  20-19  B.C. 
The  holy  place  or  sanctuary  proper  is  said  to  have 
been  finished  in  eighteen  months ;  but  the  whole  com- 
plex of  buildings  was  not  finished  till  the  reign  of 
Nero.  Reckoning  forty-six  years  from  19  b.c.  we 
should  come  to  27  a.  d.,  which  suits  the  chronology  of 
the  Life  of  Christ  as  well  as  any  date  could  do.  It 
seems,  however,  very  improbable  that  the  date  was 
arrived  at  by  any  elaborate  process  of  calculation. 
We  are  in  the  midst  of  a  multitude  of  examples  of  the 
precise  and  accurate  detail  which  is  characteristic  of 
the  Gospel ;  and  the  most  natural  explanation  seems 
to  be  that  the  actual  words  used  stuck  in  the  memory 
of  the  Apostle,  and  were  reproduced  by  him  just  as 
they  were  spoken. 


The  Temple  123 

There  are  two  other  close  specifications  of  locaHty 
in  connexion  with  the  Temple.  One  is  the  mention 
of  'the  treasury'  in  viii.  20.  The  name  'treasury' 
(ya^o^vXaKiov)  was  given  to  the  thirteen  boxes  with 
funnel-shaped  openings  which  stood  round  the  women's 
court.  This  court  was  not  confined  to  women,  and 
was  used  indifferently  by  both  sexes  ;  but  it  was  the 
point  beyond  which  women  were  not  allowed  to  pass. 

The  other  part  of  the  Temple  mentioned  is 
'  Solomon's  porch '  in  x.  23.  It  is  explained  that 
Jesus  was  walking  here  because  of  the  season  of 
the  year.  The  time  was  the  Feast  of  the  Dedication, 
which  was  held  late  in  December,  when  those  who 
walked  in  the  open  court  would  be  exposed  to  snow 
or  rain. 

These  points  relating  to  the  Temple  are  of  more 
importance,  because  at  the  time  when  the  Gospel  was 
written  the  Temple  was  a  heap  of  ruins,  which  had 
long  ceased  to  be  frequented  for  worship,  and  of  which 
an  accurate  knowledge  could  hardly  be  expected  except 
from  a  few  Rabbinical  students,  like  the  author  of  the 
tract  Middoth,  and  those  who  had  used  the  Temple 
before  its  destruction. 

iv.  Sects  and  Parties. 

The  fall  of  Jerusalem  in  70  a.  d.  made  a  great 
change  in  the  ecclesiastical  organization  of  the  Jewish 
people.  During  the  life  of  Christ  this  too  had  been 
highly  centralized.  Both  the  great  parties  of  Pharisees 
and  Sadducees — especially  the  latter — had  their  head 
quarters  in  Jerusalem.     Jerusalem  was  the  seat  of  the 


124       ^^-    '^^^  Pragmatism  of  the  Gospel 

Sanhedrin,  in  which  both  parties  were  represented — 
the  Sadducees  in  the  numerical  majority  and  with  the 
control  of  executive  power,  but  the  Pharisees  in  closer 
touch  with  the  people  and  with  the  stronger  religious 
influence.  In  the  Gospel  we  have  traces  of  both 
parties  and  in  both  characters,  official  and  extra- 
official. 

We  meet  first  with  the  Pharisees,  and  that  in  rather 
peculiar  circumstances,  but  in  circumstances  which  we 
may  be  sure  existed.  We  are  expressly  told  (i.  24) 
that  the  deputation  sent  to  cross-examine  John  the 
Baptist  as  to  the  nature  of  his  mission  was  sent  from 
the  Pharisees.  Only  one  party  was  represented  upon 
it,  so  that  it  cannot  have  been  sent  by  an  act  of  the 
Sanhedrin  as  a  whole.  From  the  religious  point  of 
view  the  Pharisees  would  be  far  more  interested  in 
the  Baptist  and  his  doings  than  the  Sadducees. 
At  the  same  time  the  deputation  consisted  of  official 
persons  ('priests  and  Levites  from  Jerusalem,'  i.  19), 
who  would  carry  with  them  a  certain  authority.  Of 
the  nature  of  their  questions  we  shall  have  to  speak 
presently. 

In  this  part  of  our  subject  we  are  a  little  entangled 
in  cross-division,  because  the  same  sections  of  the 
narrative  are  interesting  in  more  ways  than  one. 
Chap,  vii  in  particular  will  meet  us  under  several 
heads  ;  but  there  is  just  one  section  of  it  that  I  must 
ask  leave  to  quote  in  full,  as  containing  in  a  small 
compass  a  sketch  that  seems  drawn  from  the  life  of 
the  Sanhedrin  and  its  ramifications. 

*  The  officers  therefore  came  to  the  chief  priests 


Sects  and  Parties  125 

and  Pharisees  ;  and  they  said  unto  them,  Why  did  ye 
not  bring  him  ?  The  officers  answered,  Never  man 
so  spake.  The  Pharisees  therefore  answered  them, 
Are  ye  also  led  astray  ?  Hath  any  of  the  rulers 
believed  on  him,  or  of  the  Pharisees  ?  But  this 
multitude  which  knoweth  not  the  law  are  accursed. 
Nicodemus  saith  unto  them  (he  that  came  to  him 
before,  being  one  of  them),  Doth  our  law  judge  a  man, 
except  it  first  hear  from  himself  and  know  what  he 
doeth  ?  They  answered  and  said  unto  him.  Art  thou 
also  of  Galilee  ?  Search,  and  see  that  out  of  Galilee 
ariseth  no  prophet'  (vii.  45-52). 

The  *  chief  priests  '  in  this  Gospel  correspond  to  the 
Sadducees  in  the  Synoptics  ;  the  chief  priests  and 
Pharisees  together  make  up  the  Sanhedrin.  This 
body  had  its  own  servants  and  apparitors,  whom  it 
sent  to  arrest  Jesus  ;  and  their  report  is  discussed  in 
a  debate  which  we  may  be  sure  exactly  reproduces  the 
kind  of  thing  that  actually  happened.  '  Hath  any  of 
the  rulers  believed  on  him,  or  of  the  Pharisees  ? ' 
'  But  this  multitude  which  knoweth  not  the  law  are 
accursed.'  *  Doth  our  law  judge  a  man,  except  it  first 
hear  from  himself  and  know  what  he  doeth  ? '  '  Art 
thou  also  of  Galilee  ?  Search,  and  see  that  out  of 
Galilee  ariseth  no  prophet.'  It  is  a  perfect  specimen 
of  the  kind  of  speeches  that  would  be  made,  and  the 
kind  of  answers  that  would  be  given. 

We  again  get  an  interior  view  of  the  meeting  of  the 
Sanhedrin  in  xi.  47-50.  '  The  chief  priests  therefore 
and  the  Pharisees  gathered  a  council,  and  said,  What 
do  we  ?  for  this  man  doeth  many  signs.  If  we  let  him 
thus  alone,  all  men  will  believe  on  him  :  and  the 
Romans  will  come  and  take  away  both  our  place  and 


126       IV.    The  Pragmatism  of  the  Gospel 

our  nation.  But  a  certain  one  of  them,  Caiaphas,  being 
high  priest  that  year,  said  unto  them,  Ye  know  nothing 
at  all,  nor  do  ye  take  account  that  it  is  expedient  for 
you  that  one  man  should  die  for  the  people,  and  that 
the  whole  nation  perish  not.' 

Here  we  are  introduced  to  the  politics  of  the  time. 
'  The  Romans  will  come  and  take  away  both  our 
place  and  our  nation'  was  exactly  the  fear  which 
constantly  haunted  the  minds  of  the  Sadducean  aris- 
tocracy, but  is  expressed  in  such  general  terms  as  would 
appeal  most  to  the  Pharisees  as  well.  The  haughty 
Caiaphas  makes  a  speech  which,  as  reported  to  the 
Evangelist,  he  interprets  in  a  sense  that  was  very 
possibly  not  that  of  its  author.  The  high  priest  may 
have  meant  only  that  as  an  act  of  policy  a  single 
individual  might  be  made  a  scapegoat.  But  the 
Evangelist,  who  is  himself  a  true  prophet,  has  so 
strong  a  sense  of  divine  overruling  in  all  that  happened 
and  of  divine  inspiration  taking  hold  of  men  without 
their  will,  that  he  sees  in  the  words  a  profounder 
meaning  than  they  were  intended  to  have,  though  not 
perhaps  than  they  really  had  in  the  counsels  of  God 
and  to  an  insight  like  his  own. 

Another  example  of  the  same  attitude  of  mind 
meets  us  a  little  lower  down  in  another  passage  that 
has  the  same  strong  marks  of  verisimilitude. 

'  They  lead  Jesus  therefore  from  Caiaphas  into  the 
palace  :  and  it  was  early ;  and  they  themselves  entered 
not  into  the  palace,  that  they  might  not  be  defiled,  but 
might  eat  the  passover.  Pilate  therefore  went  out  unto 
them,  and  saith,  What  accusation  bring  ye  against  this 


Sects  and  Parties  127 

man  ?  They  answered  and  said  unto  him,  If  this  man 
were  not  an  evil-doer,  we  should  not  have  delivered 
him  up  unto  thee.  Pilate  therefore  said  unto  them,  Take 
him  yourselves,  and  judge  him  according  to  your  law. 
The  Jews  said  unto  him,  It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to  put 
any  man  to  death:  that  the  word  of  Jesus  might  be 
fulfilled,  which  he  spake,  signifying  by  what  manner 
of  death  he  should  die'  (xviii.  28-32). 

There  is  an  often-quoted  statement  in  the  Talmud 
to  the  effect  that  the  Jews  lost  the  power  of  capital 
punishment  forty  years  before  the  great  siege.  The 
Evangelist  sees  in  this  a  providential  appointment 
designed  to  verify  the  Lord's  words,  and  that  His 
death  might  take  the  Roman  form  (crucifixion)  and  not 
the  Jewish  form  (stoning). 

There  is  singularly  fine  characterization  in  the 
whole  narrative  of  the  Trial,  Take  for  instance  the 
following: : 

'  upon  this  Pilate  sought  to  release  him  :  but  the 
Jews  cried  out,  saying,  If  thou  release  this  man, 
thou  art  not  Caesar's  friend :  every  one  that  maketh 
himself  a  king  speaketh  against  Caesar.  When 
Pilate  therefore  heard  these  words,  he  brought 
Jesus  out,  and  sat  down  on  the  judgement-seat 
at  a  place  called  The  Pavement,  but  in  Hebrew, 
Gabbatha.  Now  it  was  the  Preparation  of  the  pass- 
over  :  it  was  about  the  sixth  hour.  And  he  saith  unto 
the  Jews,  Behold,  your  King!  They  therefore  cried 
out,  Away  with  him,  away  with  him,  crucify  him. 
Pilate  saith  unto  them.  Shall  I  crucify  your  King  ? 
The  chief  priests  answered,  We  have  no  king  but 
Caesar'  (xix.  12-15). 

The  Roman  has  sufficient  sense  of  justice  not  to 
wish  to  condemn  an  innocent  man.     But  the  accusers 


128       IF.    The  Pragmatism  of  the  Gospel 

of  Jesus  have  a  weapon  that  they  use  against  him 
mercilessly.  They  know  that  he  was  not  in  the  best 
odour  at  Rome.  His  administration  of  his  province, 
through  his  own  wilfulness  and  harshness,  had  not 
been  very  successful.  It  was  in  the  later  days  of 
Tiberius;  and  Tiberius  thought  something  of  the 
welfare  of  the  provinces,  but  thought  still  more  of 
having  in  office  instruments  on  whom  he  could  depend 
for  strict  subservience  to  himself.  The  accusers  play 
their  part  with  cynical  adroitness  :  *  If  thou  release 
this  man,  thou  art  not  Caesar's  friend ; '  *  We  have  no 
king  but  Caesar.' 

V.  Jewish  Ideas  and  Dialectic, 

We  are  in  search  of  hints  and  allusions  appropriate 
to  the  time.  The  evidence  is  overwhelming  that 
the  author  of  the  Gospel  was  a  Jew,  and  (as  I  think) 
also  a  Jew  of  Palestine.  The  best  critics  admit  this, 
and  it  is  hardly  worth  while  to  stay  to  prove  it ; 
indeed  it  is  incidentally  proved  by  a  large  proportion 
of  the  examples  I  am  giving.  But  it  is  of  more 
importance  to  prove  that  the  author  was  a  con- 
temporary of  the  events  he  is  describing.  Now  I  will 
not  say  that  the  points  I  am  going  to  urge  exactly 
prove  this.  They  do,  however,  I  believe,  justify  us  in 
saying  that  if  the  author  was  really  an  Apostle,  a 
member  of  the  original  Twelve,  or  closely  associated 
with  them,  the  indications  in  the  Gospel  entirely 
correspond  with  such  a  position.  If  the  author  was 
not  an  Apostle,  then  he  must  either  have  been  in 
a  position  extremely  similar  to  that  of  the  Apostles, 


Jewish  Ideas  and  Dialectic  129 

or  else  he  must  have  taken  great  pains  to  convey  the 
impression  that  he  was  in  such  a  position.  The 
passages  I  am  about  to  adduce  all  reflect  with  great 
vividness  a  state  of  things  like  that  which  must  have 
existed  in  the  time  of  our  Lord. 

There  was  just  one  period  in  which  the  Christian 
Church  stood  in  a  relation  to  Judaism  which  it  never 
occupied  again  :  that  was  in  its  origin.  Christianity 
arose  out  of  the  bosom  of  Judaism.  The  first  disciples 
reached  manhood  as  Jews  ;  they  were  witnesses  of  the 
process  by  which  Christianity  gradually  broke  loose 
from  Judaism  ;  they  themselves  underwent  a  process  of 
conversion  ;  their  ideas  were  modified  little  by  little  as 
they  went  on,  and  in  the  end  the  new  displaced  the  old. 
But  they  had  been  as  familiar  with  the  attitude  of  their 
Jewish  opponents  as  they  were  with  their  own  ;  they 
knew  the  arguments  to  which  the  Jews  appealed,  the 
prejudices  by  which  they  were  animated,  the  language 
that  they  used.  I  repeat,  there  was  one  period  to 
which  this  description  applied,  and  never  another  in 
the  same  degree.  The  Fourth  Gospel  is  full  of 
instances  of  this.     Let  us  turn  to  some  of  them. 

The  earlier  chapters  have  been  drawn  upon  rather 
freely  in  other  connexions  :  we  will  therefore  begin 
with  chap.  iv.  How  perfect  is  the  local  colour  of  the 
story  of  the  Samaritan  woman  !  ^ 

^  It  is  very  surprising  that  Freiherr  Hermann  von  Soden,  in 
a  pamphlet  published  at  the  end  of  the  year,  Die  wichtigsten  Fragen 
im  Lebeti  Jesu  (Berlin,  1904),  p.  9,  should  deny  the  existence  of 
local  colour  in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  In  proof  he  mentions  some 
half-dozen  points  that  occur  in  the  Synoptics  but  not  in  this  Gospel ; 
which  only  means  that  it  is  of  a  different  type  from  the  other  three, 

C8.   F.  C.  K 


130       IV.    The  Pragmatism  of  the  Gospel 

'  The  Samaritan  woman  therefore  saith  unto  him, 
How  is  it  that  thou,  being  a  Jew,  askest  drink  of  me, 
which  am  a  Samaritan  woman  ?  .  .  .  The  woman  saith 
unto  him,  Sir,  thou  hast  nothing  to  draw  with,  and 
the  well  is  deep  :  from  whence  then  hast  thou  that 
living  water  ?  Art  thou  greater  than  our  father  Jacob, 
which  gave  us  the  well,  and  drank  thereof  himself, 
and  his  sons,  and  his  cattle?'  (iv.  9,  11,  12). 

The  standing  feud  between  Jews  and  Samaritans  is 
notorious,  and  does  not  need  illustrating.  '  The  well 
is  deep '  in  the  most  literal  sense ;  the  actual  depth  is 
about  75  feet.  But  how  appropriate  and  natural  is 
the  appeal  to  the  patriarch  Jacob,  and  the  local 
tradition  about  him  ! 

and  does  not  repeat  what  was  already  found  in  them.  And  yet, 
even  of  these  points,  several  come  back  in  another  form.  It  is  true 
that  the  Gospel  does  not  describe  the  healing  of  a  demoniac,  but  it 
has  many  marked  allusions  to  demoniacal  possession  (see  below, 
p.  134).  It  is  true  that  it  has  not  the  name  'Sadducees';  it  speaks 
of  them  rather  as  '  chief  priests ' ;  but  it  is  well  acquainted  with  their 
character  and  pohcy  (see  above,  p.  126  ff.).  The  Gospel  has  no 
'elders,'  but  it  has  'rulers'  or  members  of  the  Sanhedrin,  whose 
position  it  perfectly  understands.  In  like  manner  it  has  no  vo[xiKoi 
or  i/o/ioSiSao-KaXot,  but  it  is  fond  of  the  title  '  Rabbi/  and  it  makes 
pointed  reference  to  Rabbinical  training  (see  below,  p.  132).  The 
whole  page  of  criticism,  coming  from  a  writer  of  such  eminence,  is 
most  disappointing.  Either  the  statements  are  very  questionable  as 
fact  or  they  have  not  the  slightest  bearing  on  the  authorship  of  the 
Gospel.  Why  should  not  an  Apostle  break  off  somewhat  abruptly 
in  his  report  of  a  discourse,  or  glide  imperceptibly  from  narrative 
into  comment?  That  is  just  what  St.  Paul  does,  as  we  shall  see 
(p.  168,  below). 

The  truth  is  that  the  criticism  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  on  the  liberal 
side  has  become  largely  conventional ;  one  writer  after  another 
repeats  certain  stereotyped  formulae  without  testing  them.  It  is 
high  time  that  they  were  really  tested  and  confronted  with  the 
facts. 


Jewish  Ideas  and  Dialectic  131 

'  The  woman  saith  unto  him,  Sir,  I  perceive  that 
thou  art  a  prophet.  Our  fathers  worshipped  in  this 
mountain  ;  and  ye  say,  that  in  Jerusalem  is  the  place 
where  men  ought  to  worship.  Jesus  saith  unto  her, 
Woman,  believe  me,  the  hour  cometh,  when  neither 
in  this  mountain,  nor  in  Jerusalem,  shall  ye  worship 
the  Father.  .  .  .  The  woman  saith  unto  him,  I  know 
that  Messiah  cometh  (which  is  called  Christ) :  when 
he  is  come,  he  will  declare  unto  us  all  things ' 
(vers.  19-21,  25). 

The  natural  impression  of  the  discourse  to  which 
she  was  listening  upon  the  woman  would  be  that  her 
interlocutor  was  a  prophet.  And  her  first  impulse 
would  be  to  put  to  Him  the  burning  question  which 
divided  Jews  and  Samaritans — Was  the  true  centre 
of  worship  to  be  sought  in  Jerusalem  or  on  Mount 
Gerizim  ?  It  was  at  one  time  contended  that  the 
Samaritans  had  no  Messianic  expectation ;  but  that  is 
now  given  up.  The  Samaritans  not  only  had  such  an 
expectation,  but  have  it  to  the  present  day. 

The  Jews  at  Capernaum  in  chap,  vi  apply  the 
Pentateuchal  history  in  very  much  the  same  way  as 
the  Samaritan  woman.  Some  of  our  modern  critics, 
who  have  a  keen  eye  for  anything  to  which  exception 
can  be  taken,  and  who  do  not  appreciate  the  simplicity 
which  is  not  peculiar  to  St.  John  but  characteristic  of 
the  Biblical  narrative  generally,  will  say  that  here 
we  have  a  '  schematism,'  a  stereotyped  formula,  which 
shows  poverty  of  invention.  On  the  contrary,  I  would 
describe  it  as  a  touch  of  nature  so  ingrained  in  the 
Jewish  habit  of  mind  that  it  was  sure  to  recur,  and 
harmonizes  thoroughly  with  the  historical  situation. 

K  2 


132       IK    The  Pragmatism  of  the  Gospel 

Chap,  vii  is  full  of  the  kind  of  materials  of  which  we 
are  in  search ;  but  the  greater  proportion  of  them  we 
will  reserve  for  our  next  head.  I  must,  however,  just 
refer  in  passing  to  the  expression  of  the  Jews'  sur- 
prise, *  How  knoweth  this  man  letters,  having  never 
learned  ?'  (ver.  15).  It  is  just  what  would  excite  the 
astonishment  of  the  populace  that  one  who  seemed  to 
be  a  simple  peasant,  and  had  not  been  a  student  in  any 
of  the  current  Rabbinical  schools,  should  yet  show 
himself  so  well  able  to  deal  with  the  profoundest 
questions  that  the  Rabbis  were  in  the  habit  of  dis- 
cussing. This  seventh  chapter  places  us  in  the  midst 
of  a  society  which,  with  only  a  slight  difference  of 
method,  reminds  us  of  the  restless  curiosity  with 
which  we  are  told  that  Alexandrian  Christians  can- 
vassed the  metaphysical  problems  involved  in  the 
Arian  controversy.  In  Palestine  the  dominant  in- 
fluence was  Rabbinism  ;  the  one  idea  that  the  people 
had  of  learning  was  Rabbinical  learning ;  and  so 
entirely  did  the  '  scribes  and  Pharisees '  cover  the 
ground  that  the  appearance  of  a  teacher  who  was 
neither  scribe  nor  Pharisee  was  sure  to  be  remarked 
upon. 

A  little  lower  down  we  have  exactly  the  kind  of 
argument  to  which  the  Jewish  people  were  accus- 
tomed. 

*  The  multitude  answered.  Thou  hast  a  devil :  who 
seeketh  to  kill  thee?  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto 
them,  I  did  one  work,  and  ye  all  marvel.  For  this 
cause  hath  Moses  given  you  circumcision  (not  that  it 
is  of  Moses,  but  of  the  fathers) ;  and  on  the  sabbath 


Jewish  Ideas  and  Dialectic  133 

ye  circumcise  a  man.  If  a  man  rcceiveth  circumcision 
on  the  sabbath,  that  the  law  of  Moses  may  not  be 
broken  ;  are  ye  wroth  with  me,  because  I  made  a  man 
every  whit  whole  on  the  sabbath  ?'  (vers.  20-3). 

I  do  not  think  it  can  be  doubted  that  arguments 
like  this  were  just  what  would  be  constantly  heard  at 
the  first  beginnings  of  Christianity.  But  they  belong 
to  the  time  when  it  was  just  in  the  act  of  differentiating 
itself  from  Judaism  ;  and  I  cannot  easily  imagine  that 
they  would  be  so  clearly  realized  and  so  appropriately 
introduced  later. 

Of  the  same  kind  is  much  of  the  discussion  in 
ch.  viii.  I  do  not  undertake  to  say  that  this  discussion,  or 
other  discussions  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  are  given 
exactly  as  they  really  happened.  I  am  quite  prepared 
to  believe  that  especially  the  part  in  them  taken  by 
our  Lord  Himself  was  a  little  different  from  that  which 
He  is  represented  as  taking.  But,  if  I  think  this,  it  is 
because  the  narrative  seems  to  me  (if  it  is  not  too 
much  of  a  paradox  to  say  so)  even  too  true  to  the 
time  and  circumstances  in  which  the  discussion  took 
place.  No  doubt  our  Lord  is  represented  as  holding 
Himself  apart  from  and  above  the  Jewish  controver- 
sialists. I  feel  sure  that  He  did  this  ;  but,  with  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  before  me,  I  suspect  that  He  did  it 
in  a  slightly  different,  i.  e.  in  a  more  reserved  and — if 
I  may  be  forgiven  the  expression — delicate  way. 

With  thus  much  of  preface  I  will  just  give  a  specimen 
of  what  I  mean  by  truth  to  the  time  and  circumstances. 

'  The  jews  answered  and  said  unto  him.  Say  we 
not  well  that  thou  art  a  Samaritan,  and  hast  a  devil  ? 


134       I^'    The  Pragmatism  of  the  Gospel 

Jesus  answered,  I  have  not  a  devil ;  but  I  honour  my 
Father,  and  ye  dishonour  me.  .  .  .  The  Jews  said  unto 
him,  Now  we  know  that  thou  hast  a  devil.  Abraham 
is  dead,  and  the  prophets  ;  and  thou  sayest,  if  a  man 
keep  my  word,  he  shall  never  taste  of  death.  Art 
thou  greater  than  our  father  Abraham,  which  is  dead  ? 
and  the  prophets  are  dead  :  whom  makest  thou  thy- 
self?' (vers.  48,  49,  52,  53). 


'Thou  art  a  Samaritan,  and  hast  a  devil';  'Abraham 
is  dead,  and  the  prophets.'  These  are  exactly  the 
things  that  would  be  said,  and  that  we  may  be  sure 
were  said.  But  I  am  not  satisfied  with  the  hypothesis 
that  the  author  who  wrote  them  was  a  Jew  of  Palestine. 
I  believe  that  he  was,  and  must  have  been,  an  actual 
contemporary  and  eye-witness  of  what  he  is  recording. 

The  same  conclusion  forces  itself  upon  us  all  through 
the  next  chapter,  which  is  steeped  in  Jewish  ideas  and 
customs  ;  and  those  not  Jewish  ideas  and  customs  in 
the  abstract,  but  in  direct  and  close  connexion  with 
the  Jewish  controversy  as  it  existed  in  the  time  of  our 
Lord  and  centring  in  His  person.  I  single  out  a  few 
of  the  verses  that  illustrate  this  most  vividly. 

'  And  as  he  passed  by,  he  saw  a  man  blind  from 
his  birth.  And  his  disciples  asked  him,  saying, 
Rabbi,  who  did  sin,  this  man,  or  his  parents,  that  he 
should  be  born  blind  ?  Jesus  answered.  Neither  did 
this  man  sin,  nor  his  parents :  but  that  the  works  of 
God  should  be  made  manifest  in  him.  .  .  .  Some  there- 
fore of  the  Pharisees  said.  This  man  is  not  from  God, 
because  he  keepeth  not  the  sabbath.  But  others  said. 
How  can  a  man  that  is  a  sinner  do  such  signs  ?  And 
there  was  a  division  among  them.   ...  He  therefore 


Jewish  Ideas  and  Dialectic  135 

answered,  Whether  he  be  a  sinner,  I  know  not :  one 
thing  I  know,  that,  whereas  I  was  blind,  now  I  see. 
They  said  therefore  unto  him.  What  did  he  to  thee  ? 
how  opened  he  thine  eyes  ?  He  answered  them, 
I  told  you  even  now,  and  ye  did  not  hear :  wherefore 
would  ye  hear  it  again  ?  would  ye  also  become  his 
disciples  ?  And  they  reviled  him,  and  said.  Thou  art 
his  disciple  ;  but  we  are  disciples  of  Moses.  We 
know  that  God  hath  spoken  unto  Moses  :  but  as  for 
this  man,  we  know  not  whence  he  is.  The  man 
answered  and  said  unto  them,  Why,  herein  is  the 
marvel,  that  ye  know  not  whence  he  is,  and  yet  he 
opened  mine  eyes.  We  know  that  God  heareth  not 
sinners  :  but  if  any  man  be  a  worshipper  of  God,  and 
do  his  will,  him  he  heareth.  Since  the  world  began  it 
was  never  heard  that  any  one  opened  the  eyes  of 
a  man  born  blind.  If  this  man  were  not  from  God, 
he  could  do  nothing.  They  answered  and  said  unto 
him,  Thou  wast  altogether  born  in  sins,  and  dost  thou 
teach  us?  And  they  cast  him  out'  (ix.  vers.  1—3,  16, 
25-34). 

Notice  in  this  the  following  essentially  Jewish  ideas: 
The  connexion  of  sin  with  physical  infirmity,  and  the 
speculation  as  to  how  far  back,  in  a  particular  case, 
this  connexion  went — whether  it  was  confined  to  the 
individual  affected  himself,  or  whether  it  went  back  to 
his  parents ;  the  observance  of  the  sabbath  as  in- 
dispensable to  one  who  really  had  a  divine  mission  ; 
in  reply  to  this,  the  plea  that  none  but  a  righteous 
man  could  work  miracles ;  the  relation  of  discipleship, 
and  the  claim  of  the  Pharisees  to  be  in  the  strict 
sense  Moses'  disciples ;  and  finally,  the  characteristic 
abuse  of  one  who  bore  in  his  body  the  mark  of 
having  been  born  in  sin,  and  yet  presumed  to  teach 


136       IV.    The  Pragmatism  of  the  Gospel 

doctors  of  the  Law ;    for  such  a  one  expulsion  from 
the  synagogue  was  a  fitting  penalty  ^ 

vi.   The  Messianic  Expectation. 

We  have  already  more  than  once  come  across 
allusions  to  the  Messianic  expectation  as  it  existed  in 
the  time  of  Christ.  But  there  are  a  few  examples  of 
this  to  which  it  is  well  that  we  should  direct  special 
attention. 

The  first  is  the  series  of  questions  put  to  the  Baptist 
by  the  deputation  which  came  to  test  the  nature  of  his 
mission.  They  ask  him  who  he  is,  and  he  expressly 
denies  that  he  is  the  Christ.  Is  he  then  Elijah  ?  He 
replies  that  he  is  not.  He  is  once  more  asked  if  he  is 
the  expected  prophet  like  unto  Moses  ;  and  to  this  too 
he  answers,  No.  His  questioners  draw  the  natural 
inference,  and  call  upon  him  to  explain  what  is  his 
authority  for  administering  this  new  rite  of  baptism, 
if  he  had  none  of  these  credentials.  Thereupon  he 
discriminates  between  his  own  mission  and  that  of  his 
greater  successor. 

It  may  be  contended  that  this  passage  was  suggested 
by  two  parallel  groups  in  the  Synoptics,  the  specula- 
tions of  Herod  Antipas  as  to  our  Lord — that  He  is  the 
Baptist  risen  from  the  dead,  or  Elijah,  or  a  prophet 
(Mark  vi.  14-16;  Matt.  xiv.  i,  2;  Luke  ix.  7,  8),  and  the 
preliminary  of  St.  Peter's  confession,  when  the  disciples 
are  asked  by  their  Master  as  to  the  common  opinion 
about  Him  and  they  reply  that  some  supposed  Him  to 

^  On  the  application  of  this  penalty  in  the  lifetime  of  Christ,  see 
above,  p.  115. 


The  Messianic  Expectation  137 

be  the  Baptist  and  others  Elijah,  and  others  again,  one 
of  the  prophets  (Mark  viii.  27,  28;  Matt.  xvi.  13,  14; 
Luke  ix.  18,  19). 

There  are  doubtless  the  two  possibilities :  the 
questions  attributed  to  the  deputation  in  St.  John,  if 
we  suppose  that  the  author  was  really  remote  from 
the  events,  would  be  suggested  by  passages  like 
these  ;  if  he  was  an  eye-witness,  it  would  be  more 
probable  that  they  were  taken  directly  from  the  life, 
or  at  least  from  the  personal  knowledge  of  the  writer 
that  such  ideas  were  commonly  entertained  at  the 
time.  There  are  several  reasons  for  thinking  that 
this  latter  hypothesis  is  the  easier  and  less  artificial. 
To  suppose  that  the  scene  was  a  literary  invention 
would  involve  the  adaptation  to  the  Baptist  of  what 
was  originally  said  of  Christ."  It  is  also  against  the 
supposition  that  the  questions  are  borrowed  from 
the  Synoptists,  that  in  one  important  point  they  run 
directly  counter  to  the  Synoptic  tradition.  When  the 
Baptist  is  asked  if  he  is  Elijah,  he  says  that  he  is 
not,  whereas  the  Synoptists  persistently  identify  him 
with  Elijah,  and  that  upon  the  authority  of  Christ 
Himself  (Matt.  xi.  14;  xvii.  10-13;  Mark  ix.  11-13). 
There  is  another  noticeable  divergence.  In  St.  John 
the  question  relates  to' the  prophet,'  with  direct  reference 
to  Deut.  xviii.  15,  18;  in  the  Synoptists  the  phrase 
used  is  '  a  prophet,  as  one  of  the  prophets,'  or  '  one 
of  the  prophets.'  These  are  the  forms  of  the  phrase 
in  St.  Mark,  which  is  fundamental.  On  the  second 
occasion  St.  Matthew  substitutes  'Jeremiah  or  one 
of  the  prophets ' ;    on  both   occasions    St.    Luke  has 


138       IF.    The  Pragmatism  of  the  Gospel 

*  one  of  the  old  prophets  is  (was)  risen  again/  The 
difference  between  the  two  versions  is  rather  marked, 
though  no  doubt  the  Synoptic  idea  ultimately  goes 
back  to  Deut.  xviii,  like  the  other.  For  these  reasons 
the  hypothesis  that  St.  John  is  drawing  from  the  life 
seems  distinctly  preferable. 

Allusion  has  already  been  made  to  some  of  the 
popular  ideas  and  to  the  meeting  of  the  Sanhedrin 
in  chap.  vii.  That  chapter  is  especially  important 
from  our  present  point  of  view,  that  of  the  Messianic 
expectation.  We  see  there  reproduced  with  wonderful 
vividness  just  such  an  undercurrent  of  criticism  as 
we  may  be  sure  was  constantly  going  on,  particularly 
in  Jerusalem. 

'Some  therefore  of  them  of  Jerusalem  said,  Is  not 
this  he  whom  they  seek  to  kill  ?  And  lo,  he  speaketh 
openly,  and  they  say  nothing  unto  him.  Can  it  be 
that  the  rulers  indeed  know  that  this  is  the  Christ  ? 
Howbeit  we  know  this  man  whence  he  is  :  but  when 
the  Christ  cometh,  no  one  knoweth  whence  he  is.' 

'  But  of  the  multitude  many  believed  on  him ;  and 
they  said.  When  the  Christ  shall  come,  will  he  do 
more  signs  than  those  which  this  man  hath  done  ?  ' 

'  Some  of  the  multitude  therefore,  when  they  heard 
these  words,  said.  This  is  of  a  truth  the  prophet. 
Others  said.  This  is  the  Christ.  But  some  said. 
What,  doth  the  Christ  come  out  of  Galilee  ?  Hath 
not  the  Scripture  said  that  the  Christ  cometh  of 
the  seed  of  David,  and  from  Bethlehem,  the  village 
where  David  was  ?  So  there  arose  a  division  in 
the  multitude  because  of  him.  And  some  of  them 
would  have  taken  him ;  but  no  man  laid  hands  on 
him.' 

'  They  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Art  thou  also 


The  Messianic  Expectation  139 

of    Galilee  ?      Search,    and   see    that   out   of  Gahlee 
ariseth  no  prophet'  (vers.   25-7,  31,  40-4,  52). 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  several  of  the  points  in 
the  expectation  thus  depicted  are  of  a  somewhat  re- 
condite character.  '  We  know  this  man  whence  he 
is  :  but  when  the  Christ  cometh,  no  one  knoweth 
whence  he  is.'  This  point  can  be  verified,  at  least 
approximately.  There  is  a  Jewish  saying  that  'three 
things  come  wholly  unexpected,  Messiah,  a  god-send, 
and  a  scorpion  ^'  And  Justin  Martyr  alludes  to 
another  tradition,  that  the  Messiah  would  not  even 
know  his  own  mission  until  he  was  anointed  by 
Elijah  ^ — the  idea  of  this  was  perhaps  suggested  by 
the  anointing  of  David. 

Again  we  note  that  the  writer  assumes  the  point 
of  view  of  the  crowd,  according  to  which  Christ  was 
regarded  as  coming  from  Nazareth  in  Galilee,  though 
in  any  case  he  had  before  him  the  First  and  Third 
Gospels  which  placed  His  birth  in  Bethlehem.  Not 
a  hint  escapes  the  Evangelist  of  his  knowledge  of 
this,  although  the  point  is  brought  as  an  objection 
to  our  Lord's  Messianic  claims.  In  other  words,  the 
Gospel  reflects  the  real  state  of  things  in  a.  d.  28, 
not  the  Christian  beliefs  of  a.  d.  90.  We  have  to  say 
the  same  of  the  test  applied  by  the  Sanhedrin,  that 
a  prophet  was  not  to  be  looked  for  from   Galilee. 

All    these  points    agree  beautifully   with    the   time 

when    Jesus   was    moving   about    with    His    disciples 

among  His  countrymen,  a  time  of  which  the  genuine 

recollection    must  have   been    long   lost  to  all    those 

*  Sanhed?:  97  a.  "^  Dial.  c.  Try  ph.  §  8,  cf.  no. 


140       IV.    The  Pragmatism  of  the  Gospel 

Christians  who  had  not  themselves  actually  lived  in 
it.  The  same  comment  would  have  to  be  made  upon 
the  language  in  which  the  Evangelist  more  than  once 
refers  to  Christ's  mission,  or  rather  the  popular  con- 
ception of  it.  In  vi.  15,  the  people  are  represented 
as  coming  to  take  Him  by  force  and  make  Him 
king;  and  at  the  entry  into  Jerusalem  He  is  greeted 
as  the  King  of  Israel,  and  the  prophecy  of  Zechariah 
is  applied  to  Him,  '  Behold  thy  King  cometh,  &c.' 
In  all  this  there  are  evident  traces  of  the  unreformed 
Messianic  idea,  as  associated  with  political  domination. 
By  the  year  90  all  such  ideas  must  have  entirely 
vanished,  and  it  must  have  required  an  effort  of  mind 
to  recover  them  which  one  who  had  not  been  himself 
connected  with  the  events  would  have  had  no  in- 
centive to  make. 

I  am  greatly  mistaken  if  the  mass  of  particulars 
collected  in  this  lecture  does  not  come  home  to  the 
mind  with  great,  and  even  overwhelming,  force.  In 
me  at  least  it  inspires,  and  has  always  inspired  ever 
since  I  took  up  the  study  of  the  Gospel,  a  strong 
conviction  that  it  could  only  be  the  work  of  one 
who  had  really  lived  through  the  events  that  he 
describes.  Perhaps  there  is  a  little  exaggeration  in 
the  phrase  that  it  'could  only  be'  such  a  one.  It 
is  the  kind  of  rough  approximate  phrase  that  one 
is  apt  to  use  for  practical  common-sense  purposes. 
Strictly  speaking,  there  is  the  other  alternative,  of 
which  we  ought  not  wholly  to  lose  sight,  that  the 
author   was   a  second-century    Christian,    perhaps   of 


The  Messianic  Expectation  141 

Jewish  descent  and  with  some  Jewish  training,  who 
by  a  tour  dc  force  threw  himself  back  into  the  circum- 
stances of  the  time  and  had  a  wonderful  success  in 
reproducing  them.  Dr.  Drummond  reminds  us  that 
there  is  this  alternative. 

*  It  is  sometimes  said  that  to  produce  an  untrue 
narrative  possessing  such  verisimilitude  as  the  Gospel 
would  have  been  quite  beyond  the  capacity  of  any 
writer  of  the  second  century  :  such  an  author  would 
be  without  example  ;  such  a  work  would  be  a  literary 
miracle.  In  making  this  allegation  people  seem  to 
forget  that  the  book  is  in  any  case  unique.  Whether 
it  be  true  history,  or  the  offspring  of  spiritual  imagina- 
tion, or  a  mixture  of  both,  no  one,  so  far  as  we  know, 
could  have  written  it  in  the  second  or  any  other 
century,  except  the  man  w^ho  did  write  it ;  and  to 
assert  that  an  unexampled,  unknown,  and  unmeasured 
literary  genius  could  not  have  done  this  or  that  appears 
to  me  extremely  hazardous  '  (p.  378  f.). 

Perfectly  true ;  there  doubtless  is  the  possibility 
that  *an  unexampled,  unknown,  and  unmeasured 
literary  genius'  could  have  done  what  we  find.  But 
as  a  rule,  where  facts  can  be  explained  easily  and 
naturally  without  having  recourse  to  any  such  extra- 
ordinary assumption,  the  world  is  content  so  to  explain 
them.  The  practical  question  is  a  balance  of  proba- 
bilities. And  even  now,  as  in  the  days  of  Bishop 
Butler,  probability  is  the  very  guide  of  life. 


LECTURE  V 

THE  CHARACTER  OF  THE  NARRATIVE 

The  last  lecture  called  attention  to  a  multitude  of 
little  points  that  seem  to  lead  to  a  definite  conclusion. 
They  almost  all  belonged  to  the  framework,  or 
setting  of  the  narrative,  and  not  to  its  salient  features. 
I  was  conscious,  not  seldom,  of  stopping  short  just 
where  we  seemed  to  be  coming  to  something  of  more 
importance,  and  to  which  exception  would  be  more 
likely  to  be  taken.  I  stopped  short  deliberately  and 
of  set  purpose,  because  I  am  myself  of  opinion  that 
from  the  point  of  view  of  critical  method,  it  is  just 
these  small  incidental  details  that  are  most  significant. 
They  are  the  sort  of  details  that  an  author  throws  in 
when  he  is  off  his  guard.  From  them,  far  more  than 
from  his  laboured  arguments,  we  may  tell  what  is 
his  real  standpoint  and  attitude.  In  regard  to 
the  abundant  details  which  we  have  examined,  the 
Evangelist  had  plentiful  opportunities  of  tripping ; 
but  in  no  single  instance  is  he  really  convicted  of 
doing  so,  whereas  in  a  vast  number  his  record  has 
been  verified. 

Taking  this  ample  verification  of  details  with  the 
direct  claim  considered  in  the  last  lecture  but  one,  we 
have  reached  a  point  at  which  the  authentic  character 
of  the  Gospel,  its  claim  to  come  from  an  eye-witness  if 
not  from  an  Apostle,  seems  to  be  really  well  assured. 
But  the  question  that  now  meets  us  is,  how  far  this 


The  Character  of  the  Narrative  143 

assurance  is  neutralized  by  the  arguments  brought 
against  the  Gospel  from  a  comparison  of  it  with  the 
Synoptics  and  from  certain  points  of  general  proba- 
bility. It  is  true  that  there  are  differences,  which  may 
amount  to  discrepancies,  between  the  Fourth  Gospel 
and  its  predecessors. 

There  is,  however,  this  preliminary  remark  to  be 
made,  before  we  discuss  the  differences  in  detail,  that 
whatever  we  may  think  in  regard  to  them,  in  any  case 
the  result  must  in  one  respect  be  favourable,  and  not 
adverse,  to  the  Gospel ;  it  must  be  favourable  at  least 
to  its  independence  and  authority.  For  there  are  two 
things  to  be  noticed  in  regard  to  these  differences. 

i.  The  Evangelist  had  the  Synoptic  Gospels  before 
him ;  and,  where  he  differs  from  them,  he  does  so 
deliberately.  Either  his  intention  is  to  correct  them, 
or  at  least  he  deliberately  goes  his  own  way. 

It  follows  that  he  was  a  person  who  was  conscious 
of  writing  with  authority.  If  he  had  not  been,  and  if 
he  was  only  desirous  of  insinuating  his  own  views 
under  cover  of  a  great  name,  we  may  be  pretty  sure 
that  he  would  have  kept  closely  to  the  lines  already 
marked  out  by  works  that  had  a  considerable  vogue 
and  a  considerable  reputation. 

ii.  And  we  are  confirmed  in  this  opinion  by  the 
further  observation  that  the  points  on  which  he  differs 
from  his  predecessors  are  for  the  most  part  and  to  all 
appearance  indifferent  for  any  particular  purpose  that 
he  seems  to  have  had  in  writing.  He  has  certainly 
not  gone  out  of  his  way  to  exploit  or  insist  upon  them. 
For  anything  that  we  can  see  the  only  reason  that  he 


144         ^-    T^^^  Character  of  the  Narrative 

had  for  his  divergences  was  that  to  the  best  of  his 
belief  and  knowledge  the  facts  were  really  as  he  has 
stated  them,  and  not  otherwise. 


I.  Alleged  Discrepancies  with  the  Synoptic  Narrative. 
i.    The  Scene  of  the  Ministry. 

One  of  the  most  obvious  differences  between  the 
Synoptic  and  the  Johannean  narrative  is  that  the 
scene  of  so  much  of  the  latter  is  laid  in  Judaea  and 
Jerusalem. 

The  first  comment  that  we  have  to  make  upon  this 
is  that  the  difference  is  not  really  so  great  or  so 
significant  as  it  seems.  From  both  sides  it  is  subject 
to  some  discounting,  from  the  side  of  St.  John  as  well 
as  from  that  of  the  Synoptics. 

I  have  already  alluded  to  the  fundamental  mistake 
that  is  so  often  made  of  judging  the  Gospel  as  though 
it  were  not  a  Gospel,  but  a  biography.  If  the  author 
had  been  writing  a  biography  like  (e.  g.)  Mr.  Morley's 
Life  of  Gladstone,  he  would  have  felt  himself  bound 
to  cover  the  whole  of  the  ground.  He  would  have 
had  to  sketch  the  whole  of  his  hero's  career.  He 
would  have  had  to  observe  a  due  proportion  between 
its  different  parts.  If  the  hero  had  spent  part  of  his 
life  in  England,  and  part  of  it  in  the  Colonies,  each  of 
these  should  have  had  justice  done  to  it.  But  the 
author  of  the  Gospel  was  under  no  such  obligation. 
His  object  was  not  to  write  a  complete  and  connected 
history.  The  Gospel  is  not  a  history,  but  a  series  of 
scenes,  chosen  with  a  view  to  a  particular  purpose  of 


The  Scene  of  the  Ministry  145 

which  I  shall  have  to  speak  later.  For  that  purpose 
geography  did  not  matter  :  it  was  quite  indifferent 
whether  the  scene  was  laid  in  Judaea  or  in  Galilee. 
But  there  was  a  sub-current  in  the  author's  mind  which 
led  him  to  supplement  the  work  of  his  predecessors, 
and  to  notice  some  things  which  they  had  omitted. 
Perhaps  this  was  one  of  the  reasons  that  led  him  to 
single  out  by  preference  Judaean  scenes.  And  perhaps 
those  scenes  really  lent  themselves  better  to  the 
object  that  he  had  in  view.  The  simple  peasants  of 
Galilee  needed  moral  teaching ;  whereas  the  theo- 
logically minded  inhabitants  of  Judaea  called  out  more 
of  a  theology.  If  the  writer  of  the  Gospel  had  his 
home  (or  a  home)  at  Jerusalem,  it  would  be  only 
natural  that  he  would  give  prominence  to  scenes 
enacted  there.  -  But  in  any  case  it  is  to  be  observed 
that  the  Gospel  by  no  means  excludes  a  Galilean 
ministry,  but  rather  presupposes  it. 

We  are  expressly  told  (in  iv.  44)  of  the  reason 
which  caused  Jesus  to  retire  from  Judaea  to  Galilee, 
and  it  is  rather  implied  that  the  stay  there  would  be 
of  considerable  duration.  ('  After  the  two  days  he 
went  forth  from  thence  into  Galilee.  For  Jesus  himself 
testified,  that  a  prophet  hath  no  honour  in  his  own 
country.')  Again,  in  vii.  4,  the  brethren  of  Jesus  taunt 
Him  with  avoiding  the  head  quarters  of  Judaism. 
Their  words  imply  that  His  work  had  been  done  in 
the  obscurity  of  a  province  ('  No  man  doeth  anything 
in  secret,  and  himself  seeketh  to  be  known  openly'). 
He  had  not  as  yet  manifested  Himself  to  the  world. 

On  the  other  hand,  when  we  come  to  examine  the 


146         V.    The  Character  of  the  Narrative 

evidence  of  the  Synoptics  we  find  that  it  too  is  by 
no  means  so  clear  as  it  might  seem  at  first  sight. 
From  the  critical  point  of  view  what  we  have  to 
deal  with  is  not  our  Gospels  as  we  have  them,  but 
the  original  documents  out  of  which  they  are  com- 
posed. Thus  their  evidence  is  really  reduced  to 
that  of  the  main  document,  which  is  common  to 
all  three  and  is  practically  identical  with  our  present 
Gospel  of  St.  Mark.  The  second  leading  document, 
commonly  known  as  the  Logia,  was  a  collection 
(in  the  main)  of  sayings  with  very  few  exact 
notes  of  place  or  time ;  and  one  or  two  allusions  in 
this  would  perhaps  be  better  satisfied  by  a  Judaean 
ministry.  In  any  case  that  would  be  true  of  the 
special  source,  or  sources,  of  St.  Luke.  For  instance, 
the  story  of  Mary  and  Martha  (Luke  x.  38-42)  points 
to  Bethany ;  and  parables  like  those  of  the  Good 
Samaritan  and  the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican  would 
have  more  local  colour  if  delivered  in  or  near  Jeru- 
salem. 

Going  back  to  the  ground-document,  we  must 
remember  that  that  too  does  not  profess  to  be  a 
biography :  it  is  in  the  strictest  sense  a  Gospel,  the 
main  object  of  which  is  to  produce  belief  If  we  may 
accept  the  well-attested  tradition  as  to  its  origin — that 
it  was  put  together  from  material  supplied  by  the 
occasional  preaching  of  St.  Peter — completeness  and 
consecutiveness  are  not  what  we  should  look  for. 
There  can  be  little  doubt  that  this  Gospel  was  really 
full  of  gaps,  into  which  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  us 
from  inserting  such  southward  excursions  as  we  find 


The  Scene  of  the  Ministry  147 

described  in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  It  is  true  that  there 
is  something  rather  strange  in  the  fact  that  our  Second 
Gospel  should  be  so  predominantly  taken  up  with 
Galilee.  Nothing  that  we  know  quite  serves  to  explain 
this.  But,  however  that  may  be,  the  unsolved  problem 
has  more  to  do  with  St.  Mark  than  with  St.  John. 

The  antecedent  probabilities  of  the  case  are  really 
in  favour  of  St.  John's  narrative  and  not  against  it. 
It  is  not  likely  that  a  pious  Jew  would  neglect  the 
command  to  appear  before  the  Lord  in  Jerusalem. 
Neither  is  it  likely  that  a  religious  reformer  would  be 
content  to  work  and  teach  only  in  a  province.  *  It 
cannot  be  that  a  prophet  perish  out  of  Jerusalem' 
(Luke  xiii.  33)  is  a  Synoptic  saying;  and  it  would  be 
strange  if  the  prophet  only  went  to  Jerusalem  to  die. 
It  may  be  true  that  some  of  the  traces  of  acquaintance 
with  inhabitants  of  Judaea,  such  as  the  owners  of  the 
ass  requisitioned  for  the  public  entry  into  Jerusalem 
and  of  the  upper  room  in  which  the  last  Passover  was 
eaten,  might  be  accounted  for  by  visits  paid  to  the 
south  before  the  active  ministry  of  Jesus  began.  But 
this  would  not  hold  so  well  of  cases  like  those  of  Judas 
Iscariot  and  Joseph  of  Arimathaea,  whose  relation 
to  Jesus  is  associated  with  His  religious  work.  Of 
course  the  proof  is  not  decisive  ;  but  both  these  and 
many  other  indications  would  be  better  satisfied  if  the 
ministry  had  been  really  carried  on  in  Judaea  as  well 
as  Galilee.  In  that  case  we  should  better  understand 
why  the  Pharisees  sent  emissaries  to  the  north  to 
watch  what  was  going  on  (Mark  iii.  22,  vii.  i),  and 
also  how  events  gradually  led  up  to  the  final  crisis  ; 

L  2 


148       V.    The  Character  of  the  Narrative 

how  the  populace  was  worked  up  to  the  enthusiasm 
which  greeted  the  pubHc  entry,  and  how  the  hostility 
of  the  rulers  was  deepened  until  it  could  be  satisfied 
with  nothing  short  of  death.  If  the  Synoptic  narrative 
had  stood  alone,  the  catastrophe  would  be  too  sudden 
and  abrupt. 

ii.   The  Duration  of  the  Ministry. 
The    question    as    to    the    length    of    our   Lord's 
ministry    is   allied   to    that   as   to    its    place.      As   to 
this,   however,   I   should    not   be   prepared   to   speak 
!'  with   quite    so    much    confidence.      Antecedently   we 
have  no  sufficient  means  of  saying  whether  a  period 
of  a  little  over  one  year  or  a  little  over  two  years 
would  be  more  probable.     Over  such  work   a   year 
is    soon    gone ;    and    the    relation    of   the    different 
Synoptic   documents   to    each   other  seems    to   show 
that  all  are  but  fragmentary  and  give  an  imperfect 
account   of  the   events.      The  plucking  of  the  ears 
of  corn  (or  'grain,'  Amer.  R.  V.)  has  been  taken  to 
point  to  the  occurrence  of  a  Passover  in  the   course 
of  the  Galilean  ministry,  because  it  would  be  at  Pass- 
over time  that  the  grain  was  beginning  to  ripen.     We 
cannot  press  this  very  far  ;    the  incident  may  have 
occurred  (if  we  have  not  to  work   in   the  Johannean 
narrative  as  well)  near  the  beginning  of  the  ministry. 
On  the  other  hand  it  is  just  possible  that  St.  John's 
I        '        ,      story  may  be  compressed   within  the  shorter  limits. 
'       All  turns  on  the  reading  of  John  vi.  4,  where  it  is  well 


-cL 


A 


known    that   there    is   strong    patristic    evidence    for 
omitting  '  the  Passover,'  so  that  this  feast,  like  that  in 


The  Duration  of  the  Ministry  149 

ver.  I,  would  be  unnamed.  At  the  same  time  readings 
that  rest  entirely  on  patristic  quotations  are  notoriously 
precarious  ;  and  I  should  hesitate  as  much  to  lay  stress 
on  this  point  as  on  the  other.  If  I  myself  give  the 
preference  to  the  Johannean  reckoning,  it  would  be 
not  because  I  thought  that  a  clear  case  could  be  made 
out  for  it  in  itself,  but  only  on  the  ground  of  the 
general  superiority  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  in  chrono- 
logical precision.  . 

iii.    The  Cleajising  of  the  Temple. 

Another  well-known  difference  is  that  as  to  the 
place  assigned  to  the  cleansing  of  the  Temple.  In 
the  Fourth  Gospel  this  comes  at  the  beginning  of 
the  ministry,  and  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  at  the 
end.  Really  the  opposition  is  only  between  one 
document  and  another.  The  three  Synoptics  have 
in  this  instance  a  single  base,  which  is  practically  our 
St.  Mark.  In  matters  of  chronology  the  authority 
of  this  document  does  not  rank  very  high  ;  so  that 
on  external  grounds  it  is  possible  enough  that  the 
Fourth  Gospel  should  be  preferred. 

It  is,  however,  often  assumed  that  the  internal 
grounds  in  this  case  outweigh  the  external.  It  is 
held  that  so  strong  a  measure  as  the  expulsion  of  the 
buyers  and  sellers  could  only  fall  in  the  later  period, 
when  the  tension  between  the  two  sides  was  reaching 
its  climax  and  the  end  was  drawing  near.  I  am  not 
sure  that  this  is  not  to  exaggerate  the  significance  of 
the  action.  It  is  really  very  much  in  the  spirit  of  the 
Old    Testament  prophets.      Compared    (e.g.)   to  the 


150       V.   The  Character  of  the  Narrative 

slaughter  of  Baal's  prophets  by  Elijah,  it  may  well 
seem  a  small  thing.  I  agree  that  the  act  was  in  the 
strict  sense  Messianic  rather  than  prophetic.  This 
I  think  comes  out  in  the  saying,  'Make  not  my  Father's 
house  a  house  of  merchandise'  (John  ii,  16).  And 
yet,  when  we  remember  that  the  Lord  had  not  long 
before  come  up  from  His  baptism  in  the  Jordan,  and 
still  had  the  Divine  Voice  proclaiming  His  sonship  as  it 
were  sounding  in  His  ear,  it  seems  natural  enough  that 
He  should  mark  the  beginning  of  His  ministry  by  some 
emphatic  act.  The  conscience  of  the  bystanders  would 
be  on  His  side,  and  one  could  well  understand  that 
they  would  be  abashed  and  make  no  defence,  like  the 
accusers  of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery. 

For  these  reasons  it  seems  to  me  that  the  inferiority 
of  St.  John's  version  is  not  so  self-evident  as  is 
supposed.  If  it  were,  how  was  it  that  the  Evangelist 
came  to  change  the  accepted  story  as  it  reached  him  ? 
At  the  same  time  I  quite  allow  that  memory  may 
have  played  him  false.  The  point  is  not  really  of  any 
great  importance,  and  I  would  not  ask  for  more  than 
that  the  question  should  be  kept  open. 

iv.   The  Date  of  the  Last  Supper  and  of  the  Crucifixion. 

Few  subjects  connected  with  the  Fourth  Gospel  are 
more  difficult  and  more  complicated  than  this  question 
of  the  date  (i.  e.  the  day  of  the  month)  of  the  Last 
Supper  and  the  Crucifixion.  As  the  texts  stand  there 
is  a  real  difference  between  the  dates  assigned  to  these 
events  in  the  Synoptics  and  in  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
There  is  agreement  as  to  the  day  of  the  week.     In 


Date  of  the  Last  Supper  and  Crucifixion     151 

any  case  the  Last  Supper  was  eaten  on  the  evening 
of  Thursday,  and  our  Lord  suffered  on  the  afternoon 
of  Friday,  But  according  to  the  Synoptics  this 
Thursday  would  be  Nisan  14,  though  on  the  Jewish 
reckoning  (which  counted  the  days  from  sunset  to 
sunset)  the  Last  Supper  would  fall  on  the  beginning 
of  Nisan  15.  The  Supper  itself  would  be  the  regular 
passover,  and  the  Crucifixion  will  have  taken  place 
after  the  passover.  According  to  St.  John  we  are 
expressly  told  that  the  Last  Supper  was  held  *  before 
the  passover'  (xiii.  i),  on  what  we  should  call  the 
evening  of  Nisan  13,  and  the  Jews  the  beginning  of 
Nisan  14 ;  and  our  Lord  will  have  suffered  on  the 
afternoon  of  the  following  day,  that  still  belonged  to 
Nisan  14,  and  His  death  will  have  taken  place  at  the 
time  devoted  to  the  slaughter  of  the  Paschal  Iambs 

(3-5  P-m.)- 

It  is   said  that  this  date  is  chosen  for  typological 

reasons,  to  identify  Christ  as  the  true  Paschal  Lamb. 

If  that    is    so,    the    Evangelist  has  at  least  not  said 

a  word  to  emphasize  the  point,  and  to  appreciate  its 

significance  we  have  to  go  to  St.  Paul  (i  Cor.  v.  7,  *  For 

our  passover  also  hath  been  sacrificed,  even  Christ '). 

But  the  argument  may  just  as  well  be  inverted,  and 

St.  Paul  may  be  taken  as  corroborating  the  statement 

in  the  Fourth  Gospel.     It  is  indeed,  as  I   cannot  but 

think  in  this  as  in  other  cases,  more  probable  that  the 

fact  gave  rise  to  the  idea,  than   that  the  idea  came 

first  and  was  afterwards  translated  into  fact. 

There  does   not,    therefore,  seem    to    be   any  real 

presumption    against    the    accuracy    of    the    Fourth 


152         V.    The  Character  of  the  Narrative 

Gospel.  Probably,  if  the  truth  were  known,  the  pre- 
sumption so  far  as  it  went  would  be  rather  in  its 
favour,  from  the  early  date  and  excellent  character 
of  the  evidence  supplied  by  St.  Paul.  But  when  we 
come  to  compare  the  two  narratives  in  detail,  the 
favourable  presumption  is  increased  by  the  fact  that, 
whereas  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  throughout  entirely 
consistent  with  itself,  the  Synoptics  are  by  no  means 
so  consistent. 

An  interesting  point  was  raised  by  the  late  Dr. 
Chwolson,  an  eminent  Russian  savant,  who  was  a 
great  authority  on  things  Jewish — he  was  a  Jew  by 
birth,  though  he  embraced  Christianity,  and  became 
Professor  at  St.  Petersburg  and  a  member  of  the 
Imperial  Academy.  In  an  elaborate  monograph,  Das 
letzte  Passamahl  Christi  und  der  Tag  seines  Todes 
(St.  Petersburg,  1892),  Dr.  Chwolson  tried  with  great 
learning  and  ingenuity  to  bring  the  Synoptic  narrative 
into  harmony  with  that  of  St.  John.  The  attempt 
was  carefully  examined  by  Dr.  Schtirer  \  and  I  am 
not  prepared  to  say  that  it  was  successful.  But  I  am 
not  sure  that  one  of  the  items  in  Dr.  Chwolson's 
criticism  of  the  Synoptic  story  was  completely  disposed 
of,  even  though  so  formidable  a  triad  as  Schiirer  himself, 
H.J.  Holtzmann  and  Zahn  agree  in  taking  the  other 
side.  The  three  Synoptic  Gospels  all  place  the  Last 
Supper  on  the  evening  of  '  the  first  day  of  unleavened 
bread,  when  they  sacrificed  the  passover'  (Mark  xiv. 
12:  cf.  Matt.  xxvi.  1 7,  Luke  xxii.  7).  Chwolson 
challenges  the  accuracy  of  this  expression  and  asserts 
*   Theol.  Literaiurzeiiung,  1893,  col.  181  ff. 


Date  of  the  Last  Supper  and  Crucifixion     153 

that  '  From  the  Mosaic  writings  down  to  the  Book  of 
Jubilees  (chap.  xHx),  Philo,  Flavius  Joscphus,  the 
Palestinian  Targum  ascribed  to  Jonathan  ben  Uziel, 
the  Mishnah,  the  Talmud,  the  Rabbinical  writings  of 
the  Middle  Ages,  indeed  down  to  the  present  day,  the 
Jews  have  always  understood  by  the  expression  "the 
first  day  of  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread,"  only  the 
15th  of  the  month,  never  the  14th.'  There  is  some- 
thing of  an  answer  to  this  criticism ;  and  it  is 
perhaps  made  good  that  by  a  laxity  of  expression 
the  Synoptists  might  write  as  they  have  done.  Of 
course  the  fundamental  text  is  that  of  St.  Mark, 
and  Chwolson's  ingenious  solution  by  emending  the 
text  of  St.  Matthew  is  so  much  labour  thrown 
away.  Still  the  comprehensive  statement  as  to 
Jewish  usage  does  not  seem  to  be  invalidated,  and 
the  laxity  of  expression  remains  somewhat  curious. 

I  can  conceive  it  possible  that  the  Synoptists  may 
be  brought  into  closer  agreement  with  St.  John — 
perhaps  on  the  lines  of  a  paper  by  the  Rev.  G.  H.  Box 
{Journ.  of  Thcol.  Studies,  April,  1902),  which  I  am 
glad  to  see  is  spoken  of  with  some  approval  by  Dr. 
Drummond — on  the  hypothesis  that  the  meal  of  which 
our  Lord  and  His  disciples  partook  was  really  the 
ceremony  of  Kiddusk,  a  solemn  '  sanctification '  which 
preceded  the  weekly  Sabbath  and  great  festivals 
like  the   Passover. 

But  in  any  case  the  Synoptic  version  is  too  much 
burdened  by  contradictions  to  be  taken  as  it  stands. 
Many  of  these  have  been  often  pointed  out.  In  Mark 
xiv.  2  (Matt.  xxvi.  5)  we  are  expressly  told  that  the 


154       ^-    The  Character  of  the  Narrative 

Sanhedrin  determined  to  arrest  Jesus,  but  'not  during 
the  feast,'  lest  there  should  be  a  tumult  among  the 
people.  But,  according  to  the  Synoptic  account,  it 
was  on  the  most  sacred  day  of  the  feast,  and  after  the 
passover  had  been  eaten,  that  the  arrest  was  carried 
out.  Further,  we  observe  that  although  the  Last 
Supper  is  described  as  a  passover,  there  is  no  hint 
or  allusion  to  its  most  characteristic  feature,  the  paschal 
lamb.  The  events  of  the  night  would  involve  sacrilege 
for  a  devout  Jew.  On  such  a  holy  day  it  was  not 
allowed  to  bear  arms ;  and  yet  Peter  is  armed,  and 
the  servants  of  the  High  Priest,  if  not  themselves 
armed,  accompany  an  armed  party.  Then  we  have 
the  hurried  meeting  of  the  Sanhedrin  who,  according 
to  the  Synoptic  version,  would  have  just  risen  from 
the  paschal  meal.  Jesus  is  taken  to  the  praetorium 
of  the  Roman  Governor,  to  enter  which  would  cause 
defilement,  and  that  on  the  most  sacred  day  of  the 
feast.  Simon  of  Cyrene  is  represented  as  coming  in 
from  the  country,  which  though  perhaps  not  necessarily 
implying  a  working  day,  looks  more  like  it  than  a  day 
treated  as  a  sabbath.  The  haste  with  which  the 
bodies  were  taken  down  from  the  cross  is  accounted 
for  by  the  sanctity  of  a  day  that  is  about  to  begin,  not 
of  one  that  is  just  ending  (Mark  xv.  42).  If  it  had 
been  the  latter,  Joseph  of  Arimathaea  could  not 
have  '  bought '  the  linen  cloth  in  which  the  body 
was  laid. 

We  may  add  to  the  above  a  point  specially  brought 
out  by  Mr.  Box.  '  In  all  the  accounts  it  is  noticeable 
that  one  cup  only  is  mentioned  which  was  partaken 


Date  of  the  Last  Supper  and  Crucifixion     155 

of  by  all ;  whereas  at  the  Passover  a  special  point  is 
made  of  each  man  bringing  his  own  cup  to  drink 
from.' 

It  seems  on  the  whole  to  be  safe  to  say  that  if  the 
two  accounts  are  to  be  harmonized,  it  is  not  St.  John 
who  will  need  to  be  corrected  from  the  Synoptists,  but 
the  Synoptists  who  will  have  to  be  corrected  by 
St.  John.  And  the  result  of  the  investigation  on 
which  we  have  been  engaged  wull  be  that,  of  the 
four  points  commonly  alleged  against  the  Gospel,  two 
are  more  or  less  clearly  in  its  favour,  and  the  remain- 
ing two  are  not  more  than  open  questions  on  which 
either  side  may  be  right.  Even  if  the  investigation 
had  been  more  adverse  than  it  is,  it  would  by  no 
means  have  followed  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  not 
the  work  of  an  eye-witness  :  but  its  position  appears 
to  be  strengthened  rather  than  the  reverse. 

II.   The  alleged  Want  of  Development  in  St.  Johns 
Narrative. 

y  More  serious  than  any  criticism  in  detail  is  the 
general  objection  that  the  narrative  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel  does  not,  like  the  ground-document  of  the 
Synoptics,  supply  a  reasonable  and  natural  evolution 
of  events.  It  is  said — and  not  without  cause — that 
in  the  Fourth  Gospel  we  see  the  end  from  the  very 
beginning.  Whereas  in  the  Synoptics,  and  more 
particularly  in  St.  Mark,  Jesus  does  not  at  first  put 
Himself  forward  as  the  Messiah,  and  is  not  recognized 
as  such  even  by  His  disciples  before  the  Confession 
of  St.   Peter,  or  by  the  public  before  the  triumphal 


156       V.    The  Character  of  the  Narrative 

entry  into  Jerusalem ;  in  the  very  first  chapter  of 
St.  John  He  is  twice  over  greeted  as  the  Messiah 
(vers.  41,  45)  and  twice  described  as  the  Son  of  God 
(vers.  34,  49),  and  the  Baptist  also  at  this  early  stage 
already  points  to  Him  as  'the  Lamb  of  God,  which 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world'  (ver.  29,  cf.  36). 
Nor  is  it  enough  that  His  disciples  are  said  to  have 
believed  on  Him  from  the  first  (ii.  11),  but  we  are 
also  told  that  in  Jerusalem  at  the  Passover  *  many 
believed  on  his  name'  (ii.  23).  In  chap,  iii  ad- 
vanced teaching  is  given  to  Nicodemus,  and  John 
the  Baptist  is  represented  as  using  very  exalted 
language  about  Him  (iii.  31-6).  In  chap,  iv  Jesus 
reveals  Himself  as  the  Messiah  to  the  Samaritan 
woman  (ver.  26)  ;  and  we  are  not  only  told  that 
many  of  the  Samaritans  believed  on  Him,  but  that 
they  actually  acknowledged  Him  as  'the  Saviour  of 
the  world'  (vers.  39-42).  In  chap,  v  He  is  accused 
of  'making  himself  equal  with  God'  (ver.  18).  In 
chap,  vi  the  people  are  so  carried  away  by  en- 
thusiasm that  they  want  to  force  Him  to  place  Him- 
self at  their  head  (ver.  1 5) ;  and  once  more  very 
advanced  teaching  is  imparted  (vers.  26-58). 

These  earlier  chapters  are  the  more  important 
because  in  the  latter  part  of  the  ministry  the  ad- 
vanced teaching  that  we  find  may  seem  more  in  place. 
The  difficulty  that  we  have  to  deal  with  is  threefold  : 
it  relates  partly  to  the  anticipated  confessions,  partly 
to  the  free  use  of  the  word  '  believed,'  and  partly  to 
the  advanced  character  of  the  teaching.  This  last 
point  may  be   dealt   with    more   appropriately   when 


Alleged  Want  of  Development  157 

we  come  to  speak  of  the  teachin^^^  generally  ;  but  the 
other  two  call  for  consideration  at  once. 

Before  passing  on  to  this,  I  should  like  to  say 
frankly  that  I  am  not  going  to  deny  or  to  minimize 
the  facts.  I  do  not  honestly  believe  that  everything 
happened  exactly  as  it  is,  or  seems  to  be,  reported.  I 
But  in  saying  this  I  must  add  that  I  also  do  not 
believe  that,  even  if  the  argument  were  made  good 
to  the  full  extent  that  is  alleged,  it  would  at  all  de- 
cisively impugn  the  conclusion  at  which  we  have 
hitherto  seemed  to  arrive — that  the  Gospel  is  really 
the  work  of  an  eye-witness  and  of  St.  John. 

In  looking  back  over  a  distant  past  it  is  always 
difficult  to  keep  the  true  perspective ;  the  mind  is 
apt  to  forget,  or  at  least  to  foreshorten,  the  process 
by  which  its  beliefs  have  been  reached ;  and  when 
once  a  settled  conviction  has  been  formed  it  is  treated 
as  though  it  had  been  present  from  the  beginning. 
It  would  have  been  strange  indeed  if  the  aged  disciple 
had  nowhere  allowed  the  cherished  beliefs  of  more 
than  half  a  lifetime  to  colour  the  telling  of  his  story, 
or  to  project  themselves  backwards  into  those  early 
days  when  his  faith  was  not  as  yet  ripe  but  only 
ripening.  It  would  not  in  the  least  disturb  our  con- 
clusion to  admit,  that  in  the  earlier  chapters  of  the 
Gospel  there  are  a  number  of  expressions  that  are 
heightened  in  character  and  more  definite  in  form 
than  those  that  were  really  used. 

i.  Anticipated  Confessions. 
What  has  just  been   said  will   apply  especially  to 


158       V.    The  Character  of  the  Narrative 

the  terms  in  which  the  first  disciples  who  gathered 
round  our  Lord  are  described  as  giving  in  their 
adhesion.  The  author  of  the  Gospel  was  himself 
a  convinced  Christian — a  Christian  so  convinced  that 
he  could  hardly  recall  the  time  when  he  had  been 
anything  else.  It  was  natural  to  him  to  think  of  his 
comrades  in  the  faith  as  he  thought  of  himself.  ,  And 
if  he  puts  into  their  mouths  stronger  expressions  than 
they  actually  used,  it  was  only  a  little  antedating  the  fact. 
But,  apart  from  this,  it  is  a  question  whether  we 
ourselves  do  not  read  into  the  words  more  than  they 
really  contain.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  half- 
century,  or  rather  more,  before  the  fall  of  Jerusalem 
was  a  time  of  high-strung  expectation  on  the  part  of 
the  Jews.  The  belief  that  the  Messiah  was  about 
to  appear  was  widely  diffused  among  all  classes  of 
the  people.  It  was  this  belief  which  gave  a  transient 
success  to  the  many  pretenders  of  whom  we  read 
in  the  Acts  and  in  the  pages  of  Josephus.  There 
was  the  feeling  that  the  Messiah  might  come  at  any 
moment,  and  no  Jew  would  have  been  surprised  if 
He  had  appeared  in  his  own  immediate  neighbour- 
hood. Vague  rumours  were  everywhere  about,  and 
we  may  be  sure  would  readily  attach  themselves  to 
individuals.  It  is  probable  enough  that  among  the 
crowds  which  gathered  round  the  Baptist  this  ex- 
pectation was  even  more  rife  than  elsewhere.  Those 
who  came  to  his  baptism,  we  may  well  believe,  were 
among  the  most  earnest,  the  most  patriotic,  and  the 
most  sanguine  spirits  of  the  nation.  That  little 
groups,  united  by  local  ties,  would  be  readily  formed, 


Alleged  Want  of  Development  159 

and  readily  seek  to  attach  themselves  to  one  who 
seemed  to  possess  the  qualities  of  a  leader,  would 
be  only  what  we  should  expect.  And  if  their  en- 
thusiasm was  easily  aroused,  that  would  be  all  in 
harmony  with  their  surroundings. 

Perhaps  the  most  remarkable  of  all  the  anticipations 
in  these  early  chapters  is  the  announcement  attributed 
to  the  Baptist,  *  Behold,  the  Lamb  of  God,  which 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world ! '  There  is  no 
doubt  that  the  Baptist  had  a  prophetic  gift.  In  all 
our  authorities  he  is  represented  as  predicting  the 
coming  greatness  of  his  successor.  But  it  was  one 
thing  to  feel  a  dim  presentiment  of  a  mission  higher 
than  his  own,  and  another  thing  to  predict  for  that 
mission  at  the  very  outset  a  form  which  it  did  indeed 
actually  take,  but  which  it  seems  impossible  that  any- 
thing should  have  suggested  at  the  moment.  It 
would  be  difficult  to  find  a  better  example  of  what 
we  may  call  the  *  interpretative  function '  of  the 
Evangelist.  It  is  evident  that  the  events  of  these 
first  days  made  the  deepest  impression  upon  him, 
an  impression  that  no  lapse  of  time  could  obliterate. 
Certainly  something  occurred  which  in  later  years 
gave  its  shape  to  this  remarkable  saying.  In  the 
next  chapter  we  have  a  similar  saying,  the  history 
of  which  is  fully  related  :  '  When  therefore  he  was 
raised  from  the  dead,  his  disciples  remembered  that 
he  spake  this  ;  and  they  believed  the  scripture,  and 
the  word  which  Jesus  had  said.'  In  this  case  the 
whole  process  was  consciously  realized ;  the  Evange- 
list distinguished  in  his  own  mind  between  the  word 


i6o        V.    The  Character  of  the  Narrative 

as  originally  spoken  and  the  sense  which  he  was  led 
to  put  upon  it.     May  we  not  suppose  that  in  regard 
to  the  earlier  saying  a  similar  process  went  on,  but 
with  just   the    difference    that   it   was    in   great   part 
unconscious,  and  not  conscious  ?     The  Baptist  is  re- 
presented as  repeating  his  exclamation  twice  ;   but  on 
the  second  occasion  the  qualifying  clause  is  dropped ; 
the   words   are    only,    '  Behold,    the  Lamb  of  God ! ' 
Is  it  not  possible  that  this,  or  something  like   it,  is 
all  that  was  actually  spoken  ?     Perhaps  not  so  much 
even  as  this ;    but   in   some  way  or   other  we  may 
believe   that   the    Baptist   did,    as   a  matter   of  fact, 
compare   the    Figure   approaching    him    to    a    lamb. 
*<-  This  comparison  sank  deep  into  the  mind  of  one  at 
least   of  his  hearers  ;    and    imperceptibly    the   words 
filled  out  with  all  the  full  religious  significance  of  the 
lamb — the   paschal  lamb,   the   lamb  dumb  before  his 
shearers,  the  suffering  Servant,  whose  sufferings  were 
also  an  atonement,  the   Lamb  of  God  which  taketh 
away  the  sin  of  the  world. 

This  is  a  process  which  psychologically  we  can 
follow.  But  here,  as  in  so  many  other  places,  we 
can  follow  it  far  more  easily,  if  we  take  as  our 
starting-point  some  actual  phrase  which  the  Evange- 
list had  heard  and  which  had  lodged  in  his  mind, 
than  if  we  are  compelled  to  regard  it  as  pure  inven- 
tion. We  may  well  ask  what  conceivable  train  of 
thought  could  put  it  into  the  head  of  a  second-century 
writer  to  introduce  so  strange  and  remote  a  thought 
at  a  point  in  his  narrative  with  which  it  seems  to 
have  no  natural  connexion. 


Alleged  Want  of  Development  i6i 

ii.    The  Use  of  the   Word  '  Believe! 

I  have  long  suspected  that  one  of  the  reasons 
for  the  apparent  want  of  progressive  development 
in  the  Fourth  Gospel  has  been  the  ambiguity  of 
its  use  of  the  word  '  believe.' .  We  are  told  from 
the  first  that  disciples  and  others  '  believed,'  and 
it  is  natural  enough  that  we  should  take  the  word 
in  the  full  sense  of  complete  conversion  and  accept- 
ance of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  But  there  can  be 
little  doubt  that  to  do  so  is  to  read  into  the  word 
a  great  deal  more  than  the  writer  intended.  We 
do  not  make  sufficient  allowance  for  the  extreme 
simplicity  of  his  vocabulary.  He  has  but  one  word 
to  denote  all  the  different  stages  of  belief  ,  We 
must  attend  closely  to  the  context  if  we  would 
see  when  he  means  the  first  dawning  of  belief 
and  when  he  means  full  conviction.  Many  times 
over  he  uses  the  word  of  what  must  have  been 
a  quite  transient  impression.  The  impression  might 
be  confirmed  and  become  rooted,  or  it  might  pass 
rapidly  away.  As  applied  to  members  of  the  Twelve 
the  word  denotes  successive  stages  of  acceptance, 
culminating — but  even  then  only  provisionally — in 
St.  Peter's  confession.  As  applied  to  the  Samaritans 
and  to  the  mixed  crowds  in  Galilee  and  Jerusalem,  I 
the  word  probably  does  not  cover  more  than  faint 
stirrings  of  curiosity  and  emotion  which  lightly  came 
and  lightly  passed  away.  •  One  example  of  the  use 
of  the  word  is  especially  interesting.  The  writer 
is  speaking  of  the  visit  of  Peter  and    the  unnamed 

CR.   F.   C.  ]j{ 


1 62       V.    The  Character  of  the  Narrative 

disciple  to  the  tomb,  and  he  tells  how,  after  Peter 
had  entered,  the  other  disciple  also  entered,  '  and 
he  saw,  and  believed'  (xx.  8);  but  he  immediately 
adds :  *  For  as  yet  they  knew  not  the  scripture,  that 
he  must  rise  again  from  the  dead.'  We  might 
perhaps  paraphrase  :  *  The  wonder  of  the  resurrection 
began  to  dawn  upon  them,  though  they  were  not 
prepared  for  it.  At  a  later  date  they  came  to 
understand  that  prophecy  had  distinctly  pointed  to 
it,  and  that  the  whole  mission  of  the  Messiah  would 
have  been  incomplete  without  it:  but  as  yet  this 
was  hidden  from  them.  They  saw  that  something 
mysterious  had  happened,  and  they  felt  that  what 
had  happened  was  profoundly  important ;  as  yet  they 
could  not  say  more.  The  first  step  towards  a  full 
belief  had  been  taken,  though  the  full  belief  itself 
was  still  in  the  future.' 

iii.   Traces  of  Development  in  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

So  far  I  have  not  questioned  the  indictment  that 
the  Gospel  is  wanting  in  historical  development.  All 
that  I  have  done  has  been  to  urge  some  mitigating 
or  qualifying  considerations.  But  I  believe  that  the 
extent  within  which  it  can  be  said  that  there  is  no 
development,  and  that  the  end  appears  from  the  be- 
ginning, is  often  much  exaggerated.  The  unfavourable 
instances  are  observed  and  the  favourable  are  neglected. 
If,  instead  of  fixing  our  attention  upon  what  is  said 
of  the  disciples  in  the  first  few  chapters,  we  were  to 
look  at  the  attitude  of  those  who  are  not  disciples 
from  chap,  vii  onwards,  we  should  find  a  state  of  things 


Alleged  Want  of  Development  163 

differing  somewhat  from  our  expectations,  and  one 
that  really  bears  out  the  Synoptic  version  of  the  great 
reserve  and  reticence  with  which  the  claims  of  Christ 
were  prosecuted. 

Use  has  already  been  made  of  the  opening  para- 
graph of  chap,  vii  to  show  that  in  the  conception  of  the 
Fourth  Evangelist  as  well  as  in  that  of  his  predecessors 
the  ministry  of  Christ  had  been  in  the  main  carried 
on  in  a  province  and  not  in  Judaea  or  Jerusalem. 
The  evidence  of  the  same  passage,  and  indeed  of  the 
whole  chapter,  is  not  less  clear  that  He  did  not  go 
about  definitely  proclaiming  Himself  as  the  Messiah, 
but  that  He  left  His  claim  to  be  inferred,  and  doubt- 
fully inferred,  from  the  indirect  implications  of  His 
teaching.  The  brethren  of  Jesus  insinuate  that  He 
shrank  from  putting  His  claims  really  to  the  test.  It 
was  a  paradox  to  suppose  that  He  could  work  in 
secret,  and  yet  expect  public  recognition.  If  He 
desired  this  He  should  go  about  the  right  way  to 
obtain  it ;  He  should  come  forward  to  the  front  of  the 
stage,  where  He  could  be  seen  and  known  (vii.  3,  4). 
On  the  other  hand,  the  answer  which  the  brethren 
received  implies  that  the  time  for  this  complete  mani- 
festation was  not  yet  come ;  it  was  to  come  before 
His  work  was  finished,  but  the  hour  had  not  yet 
struck. 

Again,  when  Jesus  does  at  last  go  up  to  the  feast, 
the  crowds  begin  to  speculate  about  Him;  but  their 
speculations  are  as  yet  quite  vague.  Was  He  really 
a  good  man  or  a  deceiver  ?  (ver.  12).  Had  He  really 
a  mission  from  God  ?  (vers.  15-18).     Only  by  degrees 

M   2 


i64       V.    The  Character  of  the  Narrative 

do  some  throw  out  the  tentative  question,  *  Can  it  be 
that  the  rulers  indeed  know  that  this  is  the  Christ  ? ' 
They  throw  out  the  question,  but  they  seem  indined 
for  themselves  to  answer  it  in  the  negative  (vers. 
26,  27).  Others  think  that  even  the  Christ,  when  He 
came,  would  not  do  greater  wonders  (ver.  31).  As 
these  discussions  went  on,  some  were  emboldened  to 
go  further,  and  expressed  the  belief  that  Jesus  was 
really  that  great  Prophet  whom  they  were  expecting. 
Yet  others — but  still  tentatively — returned  to  the  idea 
that  He  may  be  the  Christ.  But  no  sooner  do  they 
suggest  this  than  they  are  met  by  the  reply  that  the 
Christ  must  be  born  at  Bethlehem,  and  cannot  come 
out  of  Galilee.  Thus  there  is  a  division  of  opinion, 
and  no  advance  is  made  (vers.  40-3).  This  tentative 
and  interropfative  attitude  is  not  confined  to  the  crowds. 
Even  in  the  Sanhedrin  itself,  though  the  great  majority 
scornfully  reject  Him,  there  is  at  least  one  (Nicodemus) 
who  pleads  that  the  accused  should  be  heard  before 
He  is  condemned.  He  too  is  met  by  the  same  test; 
'out  of  Gahlee  ariseth  no  prophet'  (vers.  45-52). 

It  is  very  clear  that  no  sharply  defined  issue  was 
set  before  the  people.  They  are  left  to  draw  their 
own  conclusions ;  and  they  draw  them  as  well  as  they 
can  by  the  help  of  such  criteria  as  they  have.  But 
there  is  no  Entweder .  .  .  oder — either  Messiah  or  not 
Messiah — peremptorily  propounded  by  Jesus  Himself. 

Nor  does  this  state  of  things  last  only  to  the  Feast 
of  Tabernacles.  It  still  continues  at  the  end  of  the 
December  before  the  Passion.  At  the  Feast  of  the 
Encaenia,  as   Jesus  is  walking  in  Solomons    Porch, 


Alleged  Want  of  Development  165 

the  Jews  are  represented  as  coming  round  Him  and 
saying  to  Him,  'how  long  dost  thou  hold  us  in  sus- 
pense {jriv  -^v^riv  r]fia)y  atp^is)  ?  If  thou  art  the  Christ, 
tell  us  plainly'  (x.  24).  It  is  evident  that  up  to  this 
point,  so  near  the  end,  the  claim  of  Jesus  to  be  the 
Christ  had  never  been  so  plainly  made  as  to  be 
a  matter  of  notoriety.  It  is  true  that  Jesus  replied, 
'  I  told  you,  and  ye  believed  not.'  The  reference  no 
doubt  is  to  the  rather  enigmatical  sayings  found  in 
this  Gospel.  But  even  from  these  it  would  seem  that 
the  inference  was  not  direct  and  inevitable ;  and  our 
Lord  is  represented  as  going  on  to  appeal  not  to  His 
words,  but  to  His  works  (ver.  25).  As  to  the  nature 
of  the  sayings,  there  will  be  more  to  be  said  later. 
But  the  broad  conclusion  seems  to  be  that  the  writer 
of  this  Gospel  is  as  clearly  conscious  as  any  of  the 
Synoptists  of  the  real  course  of  events,  and  that  he 
too  was  well  aware  that  the  Messiah,  when  He  came, 
had  not  forced  a  peremptory  claim  upon  an  unwilling 
people.  It  may  thus  be  seen  that  the  anticipated 
confessions  of  the  early  chapters,  whatever  we  may 
otherwise  think  of  them,  are  really  subordinate  and 
(so  to  speak)  accidental ;  the  main  course  of  the  ministry 
is  not  conceived  differently  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  and 
in  the  Synoptics. 

III.    The  Naitire  of  the  Discourses. 

Another  of  the  objections  brought  against  the 
Fourth  Gospel  that  is  not  without  a  certain  amount 
of  foundation  is  that  from  the  nature  of  the  Discourses. 


i66        V.    The  Character  of  the  Narrative 

It  is  said  with  some  degree  of  truth  that  the  dis- 
courses put  into  the  mouth  of  our  Lord  in  this  Gospel 
are  different  from  those  in  the  Synoptics.  We  notice 
at  once  that  the  parables,  which  contribute  so  much 
to  our  conception  of  the  outward  form  and  manner 
of  our  Lord's  teaching,  have  dropped  out.  What 
St.  John  calls  by  that  name,  although  similar,  is  not 
exactly  the  same  thing.  Many  of  the  discourses  are 
longer;  for  instance,  that  which  is  apparently  addressed 
to  Nicodemus  in  chap,  ili,  the  discourse  after  the  healing 
of  the  impotent  man  in  chap,  v,  the  discourse  in  the 
synagogue  at  Capernaum  in  chap,  vi,  and  the  last  dis- 
courses in  chaps,  xiv-xvii.  And  we  observe  further 
that  the  style  of  many  parts  of  these  discourses,  while 
it  is  not  like  that  which  we  find  in  the  Synoptic 
Gospels,  corresponds  remarkably  with  the  style  of 
St.  John's  Epistles. 

It  is  not  the  case  that  the  speeches  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel  are  systematically  longer  than  those  in  the 
Synoptics.  We  perhaps  have  an  impression  that  they 
are ;  but,  if  so,  it  is  not  borne  out  by  the  facts.  For 
the  proof  of  this  I  may  refer  to  the  statistics  carefully 
worked  out  by  Dr.  Drummond  on  p.  24.  There  is 
no  doubt  that  the  speeches  of  our  Lord  were,  as  Justin 
said,  'short  and  concise.'  They  had  nothing  in  common 
with  the  elaborate  compositions  and  rounded  periods 
of  Greek  rhetoric.  The  type  on  which  they  were 
modelled  was  wholly  different.  We  find  the  nearest 
parallel  to  it  in  the  so-called  '  Sayings  of  the  Jewish 
Fathers'  {Pirke  AbotJi).  Each  saying  is  a  sort  of 
aphorism ;    and  a  longer  discourse  is  only  a  string  of 


TJie  Nature  of  the  Discourses  167 

aphorisms,  unless  it  takes  the  form  of  a  simple  nar- 
rative or  description,  like  the  parables  in  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  or  allegories,  like  those  of  the  Good  Shep- 
herd and  the  Vine  and  its  Branches,  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel. 

One  form  of  discourse,  that  we  may  be  sure  must 
have  been  common,  is  more  fully  represented  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel  than  in  the  other  three ;  I  mean  the 
dialogue,  and  in  particular  the  controversial  dialogue, 
growing  out  of  some  natural  occasion,  such  as  those 
of  which  I  spoke  in  the  last  lecture,  the  woman  of 
Samaria's  appeal  to  the  patriarch  Jacob,  the  Jews' 
demand  for  a  sign  like  the  gift  of  manna,  the  practice 
of  circumcising  on  the  sabbath  day,  the  charge  of 
demoniacal  possession  and  the  claim  of  the  Jews  to 
be  Abraham's  children.  Instances  like  these  must 
be  set  down  to  the  credit  of  the  Gospel  and  not 
against  it. 

The  longer  discourses  appear  to  grow  out  of  the 
aphoristic  sayings  of  which  I  have  spoken.  Of  these 
again  Dr.  Drummond  has  made  an  ample  collection 
(pp.  18-20).  But  it  is  true  that  the  Evangelist  permits 
himself  to  dwell  on  such  sayings,  to  repeat  and  enforce 
them  by  expansions  of  his  own,  which  keep  coming 
back  to  the  same  point.  It  has  often  been  remarked 
that  we  are  constantly  left  in  doubt  where  the  words 
of  our  Lord  end  and  those  of  the  Evancrelist  begin. 
Probably  the  Evangelist  himself  did  not  discriminate, 
or  even  try  to  discriminate.  A  modern  writer,  in 
similar  circumstances,  would  feel  obliged  to  ask  him- . 
self  whether  the  words  which  he  was  setting  down 


i68        V.    The  Character  of  the  Narrative 

were  really  spoken  or  not;  but  there  is  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  the  author  of  the  Gospel  would  be 
conscious  of  any  such  obligation.  He  would  not  pause 
to  put  to  himself  questions,  or  to  exercise  conscious 
self-criticism.  He  would  just  go  on  writing  as  the 
spirit  moved  him.  And  the  consequence  is  that  his- 
torical recollections  and  interpretative  reflection,  the 
fruit  of  thought  and  experience,  have  come  down  to 
us  inextricably  blended. 

St.  Paul  was  not  a  historian,  or  we  may  be  sure 
that  he  would  have  furnished  abundant  parallels  for 
the  sort  of  procedure  that  we  find  in  St.  John.  He 
is  not  a  historian,  but  he  does  for  once  lapse  into 
history,  and  he  does  then  furnish  a  parallel  which  has 
always  seemed  to  me  very  exact  and  very  illuminating. 
You  will  remember  in  Gal.  ii.  1 1  ff.  the  account  of  the 
dispute  with  St.  Peter  at  Antioch.  The  first  few 
verses  are  strictly  historical ;  but  suddenly  and  with- 
out a  word  of  warning  the  Apostle  glides  into  one 
of  his  own  abstruse  doctrinal  arguments  as  to  justifica- 
tion by  works  of  law  and  by  faith. 

While  therefore  I  quite  allow  that  in  any  given 
instance  there  is  need  for  close  scrutiny  to  determine 
what  belongs  to  the  Master  and  what  to  the  disciple, 
I  entirely  repudiate  the  inference  that  St.  John  cannot 
have  written  the  Gospel. 

Psychologically,  the  Gospel  is  more  intelligible  if 
one  like  St.  John  wrote  it,  one  who  drew  upon  his 
own  memories  and  was  conscious  of  speaking  with 
authority.  It  is  a  mechanical  and,  I  believe,  really 
untenable  view  to  suppose  that  the  author  has  simply 


The  Nature  of  the  Discourses  169 

taken  over  certain  Synoptic  sayings  and  adapted  them 
to  his  own  ideas.  We  form  for  ourselves  a  far  truer 
and  more  adequate  conception  if  we  think  of  these 
discourses  as  the  product  of  a  single  living  experience. 
They  are  from  first  to  last  a  part  of  the  author's  self 
The  recollections  on  which  they  are  based  are  his 
own,  and  it  is  his  own  mind  that  has  insensibly  played 
upon  them,  and  shaped  them,  and  worked  up  in  them 
the  fruits  of  his  own  experience. 

It  is  this  that  really  constitutes  the  value  of  the 
Gospel.  It  is  not  a  mere  invention,  but  it  is  the 
result  of  a  strong  first-hand  impression  of  a  wonderful 
Personality.  It  is  a  blending  of  fact  and  interpreta- 
tion ;  but  the  interpretation  comes  from  one  who  had 
an  unique  position  and  unique  advantages  for  getting 
at  the  heart  and  truth  of  that  which  he  sought  to 
interpret.  It  is  the  mind  of  Christ,  seen  through  the 
medium  of  one  of  the  first  and  closest  of  His  com- 
panions. ^ 

IV.   The  Presentation  of  the  Super 7iaturaL 

i.   The  treatme7it  of  Miracle  in  the  Fourth  Gospd. 

I  cannot  regard  anything  that  we  have  hitherto  had 
to  deal  with  as  constituting  a  substantial  set-off  against 
the  arguments  previously  urged  for  the  authentic  and 
autoptic  character  of  the  Gospel.  It  is  otherwise  when 
we  come  to  its  manner  of  presenting  the  Supernatural. 
It  must  be  confessed  that  the  miracles  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  while  in  the  main  they  run  parallel  to  those  in 
the   Synoptic   Gospels,  yet   do   appear   to   involve   a 


lyo        V.    The  Character  of  the  Narrative 

certain  heightening  of  the  effect.  The  courtier's 
servant  is  healed  from  a  distance ;  the  impotent  man 
had  been  thirty-and- eight  years  in  his  infirmity ;  the 
bhnd  man  who  was  sent  to  wash  in  the  pool  of  Siloam 
had  been  blind  from  his  birth ;  Lazarus  had  lain  four 
days  in  the  tomb. 

Not  only  do  these  details  imply  an  enhancement  of 
the  supernatural,  but  it  seems  that  the  author  of  the 
Gospel  valued  them  specially  for  that  reason.  They 
fall  in  entirely  with  his  purpose  in  writing.  He  sees 
in  them  so  many  striking  illustrations  of  the  glory  of 
the  Christ,  He  had  been  himself  keenly  on  the  watch 
for  the  manifestations  of  that  glory,  and  he  delighted 
to  record  them  in  the  hope  that  they  might  impress 
his  readers  as  they  had  impressed  him. 

We  must  not  make  too  much  of  the  details  I  have 
just  mentioned.  There  is  no  real  difference  of  principle. 
The  healing  of  the  centurion's  servant  is  telepathic 
like  that  of  the  courtier's  son.  The  woman  with  the 
issue  of  blood  had  been  ill  for  twelve  years,  and  had 
spent  all  her  living  on  physicians.  From  the  way  in 
which  blind  Bartimaeus  describes  his  sensations  we 
should  infer  that  he  too  had  never  had  his  si^ht. 
Death  is  death  ;  and  Jairus's  daughter  and  the  widow's 
son  at  Nain  were  as  dead  as  Lazarus.  Really,  on  this 
point,  there  is  little  to  choose  between  the  Gospels,  as 
there  is  little  to  choose  between  the  documents  out  of 
which  the  Synoptics  are  composed. 

A  common  form  of  objection  is  that  which  lays  stress 
on  the  isolation  of  the  narrative  of  the  raising  of 
Lazarus.    So  notable  a  miracle,  it  is  urged,  would  have 


The  Presentation  of  the  Supernatural      171 

been  sure  to  leave  traces  of  itself  in  the  other  Gospels. 
And  I  quite  allow  that  the  argument  from  silence  has 
more  force  here  than  in  many  of  the  other  cases  in 
which  it  is  used.  And  yet  even  here  it  is  easily,  and 
I  feel  sure  it  is  often,  much  exaggerated.  The  only 
document  of  which  the  author  seems  to  have  had  the 
intention  of  making  any  sort  of  collection  of  miracles 
was  the  ground-document  of  the  Synoptics — we  may 
say,  our  present  St.  Mark,  Neither  the  Logia  nor  the 
special  source  or  sources  of  St.  Luke  do  more  than 
mention  incidentally  a  very  few.  But  when  we  think 
of  the  way  in  which  St.  Mark  is  said  to  have  composed 
his  Gospel,  it  is  evident  that  his  collection  of  miracles 
could  not  be  in  the  least  exhaustive.  He  was  de- 
pendent in  the  main  upon  the  preaching  of  St.  Peter, 
the  object  of  which  was  not  historical  or  biographical, 
but  the  edification  of  its  hearers.  If  it  is  true  (and  it 
is  as  yet  hardly  proved)  that  St.  Mark  had  access  also 
to  the  Logia,  that  was  a  collection  of  sayings  rather 
than  of  acts.  So  that  there  is  no  one  source  that  we 
should  expect  to  have  anything  like  a  complete  enume- 
ration of  miracles. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  we  turn  to  what  I  have  called 
the  special  source  or  sources  of  St.  Luke,  how  vividly 
do  they  bring  home  to  us  the  incompleteness  of  the 
whole  previous  record !  St.  Mark  apparently  tried  to 
collect  parables  as  well  as  miracles ;  so  also  did  the 
Logia.  And  yet  neither  of  these  documents  has  any 
trace  of  the  Prodigal  Son,  or  the  Good  Samaritan,  or 
the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican,  or  the  Rich  Man  and 
Lazarus,  or  the  Rich  Man  cut  off  before  he  could  enjoy 


172        V.    The  Character  of  the  Narrative 

his  wealth,  or  the  Importunate  Widow,  or  the  Un- 
righteous Steward.  We  should  have  thought  it  in- 
credible beforehand  that  any  one  who  professed  to  make 
collections  with  a  view  to  a  Life  of  Christ  at  all  could 
have  omitted,  I  will  not  say  all,  but  any  two  or  three 
of  gems  like  these.  And  yet  we  have  two  considerable 
works,  both  including  a  collection  of  parables,  and  yet 
in  neither  of  them  is  there  a  vestige  of  any  one  of 
the  group  I  have  mentioned.  Even  the  conspicuous 
example  of  the  Raising  of  Lazarus  does  not  shake  me 
in  my  distrust  of  the  argument  from  silence. 

ii.  Method  of  approaching  the  Question  of  Miracle. 

And  yet  I  can  well  understand  the  reluctance 
to  accept  narratives  of  miracle.  I  can  well  under- 
stand a  nineteenth  or  twentieth-century  reader  taking 
up  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  saying  at  once  and  off- 
hand. The  writer  of  this  cannot  have  been  an 
eye-witness  of  the  events  he  describes.  I  have 
little  doubt  that  it  is  the  same  sort  of  offhand 
impression  which  is  really  at  work  in  the  minds  of 
many  of  the  critics.  They  acquire  the  impression 
in  the  course  of  a  rapid  perusal  ;  or  rather  it 
attaches  itself  to  the  recollection  that  they  bring  with 
them  of  what  they  learnt  in  their  childhood.  They  do 
not  try  to  shake  it  off;  it  is  always  there  at  the  back 
of  their  minds ;  and  it  colours,  and  I  must  needs  think 
discolours,  all  the  elaborate  and  learned  study  that  they 
make  of  the  Gospels  in  maturer  years. 

This  question  of  miracles  has  been  occupying  my 


The  Presentation  of  the  Supernatural       173 

mind  for  some  time  ;  and  I  think  that  at  once  the  most 
candid  and  the  best  procedure  that  I  can  follow  in 
regard  to  it  will  be  just  to  lay  before  you  the  pro- 
visional conclusions  that  I  have  reached  as  provisional, 
as  a  stage  in  the  investigation  of  the  subject  that  does 
not  at  all  profess  to  be  final,  but  that  I  hope  contains 
something  of  truth  and  something  that  may  be  helpful 
to  others  as  it  has  been  to  myself. 

The  one  main  principle  in  the  treatment  of  miracle 
that  I  should  like  to  urge  would  be  the  importance  of 
keeping  as  distinct  as  we  can  two  things,  the  attitude 
of  mind  in  regard  to  miracles  of  the  contemporaries — 
those  before  whom  they  are  said  to  have  happened 
and  on  whose  testimony  they  have  come  down  to  us  — 
and  our  own  attitude  now  in  the  twentieth  century.  It 
seems  to  me  that  our  difficulties  are  much  increased, 
and  that  we  are  prevented  from  realizing  the  full 
strength  of  the  case  for  miracles,  by  confusing  these 
two  things. 

If  we  take  first  the  attitude  of  the  contemporaries,  it 
seems  to  me  that  several  fixed  points  come  out  in 
regard  to  them  on  which  we  may  really  take  our  stand 
with  great  confidence, 

(i)  The  first  point  is  that  what  these  men  fully  be- 
lieved to  be  miracles  undoubtedly  happened.  We  have 
evidence  on  this  head  that  is  strictly  at  first-hand,  the 
evidence  of  those  who  believed  that  they  had  wrought 
miracles  themselves,  as  well  as  that  they  had  witnessed 
the  working  of  miracles  by  others. 

(ii)  The  second  point  is  that  this  evidence  is  abso- 
lutely bona  fide.      Our  best  example   is,    I   suppose, 


174        ^-    '^^^  Character  of  the  Narrative 

St.  Paul.  It  is  a  good  exercise  to  collect  the  allusions 
to  miracles  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  to  '  signs  and 
wonders,'  to  SwdfjieLs  or  '  acts  of  power,'  to  special  gifts 
of  the  Spirit.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  St.  Paul 
was  possessed  with  the  conviction  that  he  was  living  in 
the  midst  of  miracle.  This  conviction  lies  behind  and 
permeates  all  his  thought  in  the  same  natural,  spon- 
taneous, inevitable  way  in  which  he  performed,  or  saw 
others  perform,  the  most  ordinary  functions  of  nature, 
eating  or  drinking  or  sleeping  or  breathing. 

(iii)  We  observe  further  that  these  extraordinary 
phenomena  of  which  he  was  conscious  had  for  him  the 
value  of  miracle.  The  ancients  conceived  of  miracle 
as  a  mark  of  the  presence  and  co-operation  of 
Deity.  The  man  who  could  work  miracles  showed 
thereby  that  God  was  actively  with  him.  Hence  the 
working  of  miracles  served  to  authenticate  teaching ;  it 
was  the  proof  of  commission  from  God.  It  was  in  this 
sense  that  St.  Paul  appealed  to  his  own  miracles  as  the 
*  signs  of  an  apostle '  (2  Cor.  xii.  1 2),  and  in  this  sense 
that  he  claimed  that  his  preaching  carried  with  it  *  the 
demonstration  of  the  Spirit  and  of  power'  (i  Cor.  ii.  4; 
cf.  Rom.  XV.  19). 

(iv)  If  we  enlarge  our  view  and  look  away  from  the 
performance  of  miracle  by  individuals  to  the  great  part 
which  the  belief  in  miracle  has  played  in  the  history  of 
mankind,  and  more  particularly  in  the  history  of  the 
Christian  Church,  we  cannot,  I  think,  fail  to  see  that  it 
must  have  had  a  providential  function.  I  do  not 
hesitate  to  introduce  teleology.  The  history  of  the 
evolution  of  the  world  and  of  man  is  such  that  we  are 


The  Presentation  of  the  Supernatural      175 

compelled  to  think  of  it  as  designed  ;  in  other  words, 
we  are  compelled  to  think  that  the  Power  which  lies 
behind  phenomena  has  had  a  purpose,  which  is  at  least 
analogous  to  purpose  in  man.  There  may  be  some 
paradoxical  features  in  the  carrying  out  of  this  purpose, 
due  to  tlie  peculiar  conditions  under  which  it  has 
operated ;  but  these  cannot  obscure  the  broad  lines  of 
purposeful  development ;  and  over  a  considerable  tract 
of  that  development  the  belief  in  miracle  has  played 
a  substantial  part,  and  a  part  that  we  can  see  to  be 
deeply  interwoven  with  some  of  the  culminating  events 
in  the  history  of  the  human  race. 

Some  of  us  might  be  content  to  stop  at  this  point ; 
we  might  be  content  to  accept  a  belief  that  has  been 
so  ingrained  in  the  mind  of  man  and  so  important  in 
its  effects  and  associations  simply  as  it  stands.  But 
the  curiosity  of  science  is  not  easily  satisfied,  and  in 
the  present  day  especially  it  goes  on  to  press  the 
further  question.  After  all,  what  was  it  that  really 
happened  ?  We  can  see  clearly  enough  what  St.  Paul 
(e.  g.)  believed  to  have  happened,  but  how  far  did  this 
belief  of  his  correspond  to  the  fact  ?  Were  these 
miracles  that  he  assumes  real  miracles  ? 

When  we  ask  these  questions,  it  is  well  to  remember 
that  we  are  still  in  the  region  of  relative  ideas  ;  we  do 
not  mean  so  much  What  is  the  absolute  reality  of  what 
happened  ?  as  How  should  we  describe  it — we,  with 
our  twentieth-century  habits  of  thought  and  improved 
scientific  categories  ? 

It  is  here  that  we  get  on  to  the  really  difficult  ground. 
It  is  ground  that  by  the  nature  of  the  case  must  be,' 


176        F.    The  Character  of  the  Narrative 

difficult,  because  it  means  that  we  have  to  put  a  twen- 
tieth-century construction  upon  first-century  records. 
It  is  as  if  a  present-day  physician  were  dependent  for 
his  diagnosis  of  the  facts  upon  Galen  or  Hippocrates; 
or  rather,  the  real  state  of  the  case  is  worse  still,  for 
that  would  be  at  least  comparing  science  with  science, 
the  science  of  one  century  with  the  science  of  another, 
whereas  the  data  that  we  have  to  go  upon  are  not 
scientific  (in  the  sense  of  proceeding  from  experts),  but 
rather  represent  popular  ideas  and  popular  assumptions. 

i.  In  spite  of  these  difficulties  there  are  still,  I  cannot 
but  think,  some  general  considerations  that  may  help 
us.  The  first  is  that  the  cause  must  be  in  some  degree 
commensurate  with  the  effects.  Christianity  is  in  any 
case  a  very  stupendous  fact ;  and  it  will  not  do  to 
explain  it  as  arising  out  of  a  series  of  trivial  misunder- 
standings. 

ii.  The  evidence  of  the  Gospels  is  not  quite  equal 
in  quality  to  that  of  the  Epistles.  It  is  the  evidence 
of  men  reporting  what  they  or  others  had  seen,  not 
(so  far  as  appears)  that  of  men  who  had  felt  the  current 
of  miraculous  energy  actually  thrill  through  themselves. 
St.  Paul  had  felt  this  ;  it  was  part  of  the  experience  on 
which  he  looked  back,  and  which  he  felt  to  be  inti- 
mately bound  up  with  the  whole  success  of  his  mission. 

And  yet  we  have  to  remember  that  the  miracles  of 
St.  Paul  and  his  companions  and  contemporaries  are 
secondary,  whereas  those  of  the  Gospels  are  primary. 
They  are  like  the  waves  caused  by  an  earthquake,  but 
they  are  not  themselves  the  earthquake.  If  Christ 
had  not  come  first  and  done  the  things  that  never  man 


The  Presentation  of  the  Supernatural      177 

did,  there  would  have  been  no  Day  of  Pentecost,  no 
outpouring  of  the  Spirit,  no  overmastering  impulse 
that  carried  men  like  St.  Paul  from  one  end  of  the 
Mediterranean  to  the  other  '  in  the  power  of  signs  and 
wonders,  in  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost'  (Rom.  xv.  19). 

iii.  The  argument  is  therefore  a  fortiori.  The 
disciple  is  not  above  his  master,  or  the  servant  above 
his  lord.  All  these  subordinate  manifestations,  though 
we  have  in  some  ways  better  evidence  for  them,  do 
but  point  back  to  the  one  supreme  manifestation,  the 
Incarnation  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  We  must  never 
forget  that  behind  the  alleged  miracles  of  the  Gospels 
we  have  the  absolutely  greatest  spiritual  force  that  the 
world  has  ever  known.  If  our  knowledge  is  as  yet 
very  imperfect  of  the  influence  of  spirit  upon  matter  in 
general,  it  is  inevitably  still  more  imperfect  of  this 
crowning  instance  of  the  spirit-world  in  contact  with 
the  material.  When  we  argue  upwards  from  the 
analogy  of  the  known  to  the  unknown,  we  must  always 
leave  a  large  margin  for  the  interval  between  the  point 
at  which  our  common  experience,  and  even  higher 
extraordinary  experience,  ends,  and  the  point  at  which 
this  highest  of  all  human  experiences  begins.  Even 
a  strictly  scientific  method  should  be  conscious  of  its 
own  limitations ;  when  it  has  done  all  that  it  can  do,  it 
should  be  aware  that  its  ladders  are  still  too  short  to 
scale  the  height  that  has  to  be  scaled ;  it  must  leave 
room  for  a  venture  of  faith  beyond  the  furthest  horizon 
of  sight. 

iv.  We  are  not  called  upon  to  believe  that  any- 
thing is  really  contrary  to,  or  in  violation  of,  nature. 

CR.  P.  c.  N 


178         y.    The  Character  of  the  Narrative 

St.  Augustine  laid  down,  some  fifteen  centuries  ago  : 
'  Portentum  ergo  fit  non  contra  naturam  sed  contra 
quam  est  nota  natura '  {De  Civitate  Dei,  xxi.  8).  We 
can  always  exercise  an  act  of  faith,  that  if  we  really 
knew  what  had  taken  place,  and  if  we  really  knew  the 
highest  laws  of  the  universe,  there  would  not  be  any 
contradiction  between  them.  As  it  is,  there  is  a  double 
margin  of  error  :  it  is  difficult,  and  in  many  cases 
impossible,  for  us  so  to  translate  the  language  of  the 
distant  past  into  the  idiom  of  the  present  as  to  be  sure 
that  we  can  realize  what  are  the  facts  that  we  have  to 
deal  with ;  and,  even  if  we  had  got  the  facts,  we  should 
still  have  but  a  very  imperfect  knowledge  of  the  causes 
by  which  they  were  determined. 

v.  We  speak,  therefore,  not  of  what  we  know,  but,  as 
I  have  said,  by  an  act  of  faith,  of  that  which  would  be 
e/we  knew.  In  this  attitude  we  make  allowance  for 
possible  and  probable  defects  in  our  sources  :  we  make 
allowance  for  all  the  disturbing  influences  that  have 
brought  them  into  the  shape  in  which  we  see  them. 
But  in  doing  this,  we  have  the  consolation  of  feeling 
that  any  element  of  mistake  that  has  come  in  under 
this  head  has  been  all  of  the  nature  of  extension.  The 
miracles  of  primitive  Christianity  are  certainly  not 
a  series  of  fictions.  There  certainly  was  among  them 
a  large  nucleus  of  events  that  really  had  the  character 
claimed  for  them,  that  were  really  due  to  the  operation 
of  a  Divine  cause,  and  really  bore  witness  to  the 
presence  of  such  a  cause.  If  there  was  anything 
beyond  this  of  a  less  trustworthy  character,  we  may 
be  sure  that  it  was  framed  on  the   analogy  of  that 


The  Presentation  of  the  Supernatural      179 

which  is  verifiable,  or  that  would  be  verifiable  if  we 
possessed  instruments  and  methods  capable  of  dealing 
with  it. 

This  principle  of  extensions  is,  I  believe,  of  the  first 
importance  in  the  scientific  reconstruction  of  primitive 
Christianity.  It  at  once  explains  and  covers  the 
transition  from  that  which  is  permanent  to  that  which 
is  not  permanent.  It  signifies  '  the  removing  of  those 
things  that  are  shaken,  .  .  .  that  those  things  which  are 
not  shaken  may  remain.'  As,  for  instance,  in  the  case 
of  the  belief  in  Inspiration,  there  is  undoubtedly  a 
reality  underlying  the  popular  belief  both  of  ancient 
and  of  modern  times,  so,  also,  in  the  case  of  miracle 
we  may  be  sure  that  there  is  an  inner  reality,  which  no 
criticism  will  ever  dissolve,  though  it  may  succeed  in 
making  us  conscious  that  the  descriptions  of  eighteen 
centuries  ago  no  longer  satisfy  the  thought  of  to-day. 

iii.    The  Gospel  embodies  ocular  Testimony. 

For  these  reasons  I  do  not  wish  it  to  be  supposed 
that  I  regard  all  difficulties  as  removed  and  every 
question  as  closed,  if  I  insist  upon  the  conclusion  that 
has  so  far  seemed  to  be  emerging  from  our  study — the 
conclusion  that  the  Gospel  is  the  work  of  an  eye-witness 
of  the  events,  who  is  describing  for  us  what  he  had 
himself  actually  seen.  I  do  not  want  to  use  any  kind  of 
argumentative  coercion.  I  fully  believe  that  the  author 
of  the  Gospel  occupied  this  position ;  and  yet  I  do  not 
mean,  by  asserting  this,  to  impose  upon  others  the 
necessary  consequence  that  everything  happened  (i.  e. 
that  we  can  realize  it  to  ourselves  as  having  happened) 

N    2 


i8o        V.    The  Character  of  the  Narrative 

exactly  as  it  is  described.  For  my  own  part  I  abstain 
from  attempting  to  re-write  the  narrative.  I  know  that 
any  such  attempt  is  foredoomed  to  failure.  Still  more 
do  I  refuse  to  follow  those  who  peremptorily  dismiss 
all  that  they  cannot  understand.  I  cherish  and  value 
very  highly  the  assurance  that  we  have  to  do  with  the 
work  of  an  eye-witness.  And  yet,  as  I  have  said, 
I  accept  the  result  with  a  certain  reserve,  with  the 
consciousness  that  there  is  something  unexplained  and 
which  I  perhaps  myself  shall  never  be  able  to  explain. 

This  does  not  prevent  me  from  making  what  I  can 
of  the  easier  incidents,  in  which  one  seems  to  see  one's 
way  more  clearly.  I  will  give  an  example.  One  of 
the  great  passages  discussed  at  the  outset  of  our 
inquiries  is  typical  and  significant  in  the  light  which  it 
throws  on  the  mental  attitude  of  the  writer.  We  are 
told  how,  as  he  stood  at  the  foot  of  the  Cross,  he  saw 
the  side  pierced,  and  blood  and  water  flow  from  the 
wound.  It  is  in  connexion  with  this  that  we  have  one 
of  those  solemn  asseverations  (whether  made  by  the 
writer  for  himself  or  by  some  one  else  for  him)  of  the 
truth,  resting  upon  his  own  ocular  testimony,  of  the  fact 
that  he  is  recording.  The  whole  incident  evidently 
made  a  deep  impression  upon  him,  for  he  goes  on  to 
quote  it  as  a  direct  fulfilment  of  two  distinct  passages 
of  Scripture.  And  again,  in  his  First  Epistle,  he 
refers  to  the  peculiar  phenomenon  which  he  had  seen 
as  one  that  was  fraught  with  mystical  meaning. 

Now  physicians  tell  us  that  what  the  evangelist 
actually  saw  was  not,  strictly  and  literally,  what  he  has 
described.     The  efflux  from  the  side  was  not  exactly 


The  Presentation  of  the  Supernatural       i8i 

blood  and  water,  though  it  might  quite  well  have  had 
an  appearance  like  that  of  blood  and  water,  and  the 
Evangelist  no  doubt  supposed  it  to  be  what  he  says. 
The  blood  was  real  blood,  but  that  which  looked  like 
water  was  a  sort  of  lymph  or  serum.  This  would 
serve  equally  well  to  suggest  the  train  of  thought 
which  the  Evangelist  attached  to  it.  It  is  easy  to 
understand  how  what  was  for  him  a  strange  phe- 
nomenon at  first  struck  the  eye  and  then  dwelt  in  his 
mind,  and  as  he  often  returned  to  it  and  pondered  over 
it,  at  last  took  definite  shape,  as  a  visible  emblem, 
divinely  produced,  of  a  principle  deeply  rooted  in  the 
Christian  religion,  the  principle  that  found  expression 
in  its  two  leading  Sacraments. 

Clearly  here  it  is  permissible  to  distinguish  between 
the  fact  itself  for  which  we  have  this  explicit  testimony, 
and  the  train  of  speculation  to  which  it  gave  rise.  The 
speculations  are  such  as  in  all  ages  have  naturally 
commended  themselves  to  devout  minds.  There  have 
always  been  those  who  have  had  so  strong  a  sense  of 
the  unity  of  things,  of  the  '  pre-established  harmony ' 
between  the  material  and  the  spiritual,  that  the  '  out- 
ward shows '  of  external  nature,  '  the  earth  and  every 
common  sight,'  have  seemed  to  reflect  and  symbolize 
that  which  is  unseen.  We  may  well  believe  that  there 
is  broad  fundamental  truth  underlying  these  dim  in- 
tuitions, though  it  may  be  another  thing  to  say  that 
in  any  particular  case  the  harmony  that  is  guessed 
is  precisely  that  which  the  Divine  Artificer  intended. 
But  the  point  on  which  I  should  wish  to  lay  stress  is, 
that  the  order  of  thought  is  from  the  observed  fact  to 


i82        V.    The  Character  of  the  Narrative 

the  idea,  and  not  backwards  from  the  idea  to  a  fact 
imagined  to  correspond  with  it.  And  in  regard  to  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  I  think  we  may  lay  down  that  the 
Evangelist  always  starts  from  something  that  he  has 
seen.  It  is  possible  that  his  mind,  acting  retro- 
spectively on  his  memory  of  the  physical  impression, 
may  emphasize  features  in  the  impression  that  were 
not  so  distinct  at  the  time  when  it  was  given.  But  the 
notion  that  the  Gospel  is  a  pure  romance  woven 
entirely  out  of  the  creations  of  the  brain  seems  to  me 
contrary  to  its  whole  character. 

I  do  not  wish  at  all  to  imply — I  desire  expressly  to 
guard  myself  against  implying — that  other  miracles  in 
the  Fourth  Gospel  can  be  explained  so  simply  as  that 
of  the  pierced  side.  On  the  wider  question  I  have  just 
said  what  I  have  to  say.  But  for  my  present  purpose, 
in  its  bearing  upon  the  criticism  of  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
I  content  myself  with  maintaining,  that  St.  John's 
descriptions  of  the  supernatural  always  start  from 
facts  that  had  come  under  his  own  personal  observa- 
tion, or  that  of  others  who  were  very  near  to  him. 

iv.  A  Patristic  Parallel. 

So  far  as  the  treatment  of  the  supernatural  has 
been  made  a  ground  of  objection  to  the  Gospel, 
I  think  we  may  take  a  warning  from  critical  ex- 
perience in  another  field.  I  quoted  in  the  second 
Lecture  several  instances  in  which  criticism  has  dis- 
tinctly changed  its  mind  and  come  back  to  a  view 
far  more  in  accordance  with  tradition  than  that  which 
at  one  time  prevailed.      One  of  these  instances  was 


The  Presentation  of  the  Supernatural       183 

taken  from  the  literature  of  the  beginnings  of  Monas- 
ticism,  and  more  particularly  from  the  Vita  Antonii 
ascribed  to  St.  Athanasius.  I  pointed  out  how  the 
whole  class  of  literature  to  which  this  treatise  belongs 
has  been  definitely  set  upon  its  feet  again.  After 
being  at  one  time  very  radically  treated,  it  is  now 
widely  accepted  as  in  great  part  resting  upon  good 
first-hand  authority.  One  of  the  arguments  alleged 
against  the  Athanasian  treatise  turned  upon  the 
miracles  contained  in  it.  But  at  the  present  time  that 
argument  would  be  differently  stated.  Whereas  it 
used  to  run,  This  treatise  contains  miracles  of  a  kind 
that  must  be  unhistorical,  and  therefore  it  cannot  be 
the  genuine  work  of  St.  Athanasius  ;  now  it  would 
run,  This  treatise  is  certainly  a  genuine  work  of 
St.  Athanasius,  and  therefore  we  must  make  of  the 
miracles  what  we  can  :  a  judicious  estimate  of  them 
is  given  by  Dom  Cuthbert  Butler  in  his  Lausiac 
History  of  Palladius  (1898),  pp.  192-6.  In  like 
manner  I  should  like  to  reverse  the  objection  that  is 
often  brought  against  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  to  say, 
that  there  is  strong  reason  for  regarding  it  as  a  first- 
hand authority,  and  that  the  recognition  of  this  should 
be  a  postulate  of  any  examination  of  its  bearing  upon 
the  question  of  the  supernatural. 

I  observe  that  at  the  Church  Congress  recently 
held  at  Liverpool,  in  the  discussion  on  New  Testament 
Criticism,  Mr.  F.  C.  Burkitt  made  use  of  an  argument 
very  similar  to  this,  and  that  exception  was  taken  to  it 
at  the  end  of  the  debate  by  the  Bishop  of  Salisbury, 
on  the  ground  that  the  miracles  in  the  Gospels  and  in 


184        V'    The  Character  of  the  Narrative 

\ki^  Hisioria  Lausiaca  are  too  different  to  be  compared. 
Of  course  I  perfectly  acknowledge  the  difference. 
I  would  not  for  a  moment  wish  to  press  the  argument 
for  more  than  it  is  worth.  At  the  same  time,  it  seems 
to  me  that  we  must  not  despise  the  day  of  small  things; 
we  must  not  reject  an  analogy  simply  because  it  is  in- 
complete. It  rarely  happens  that  an  analogy  entirely 
covers  that  with  which  it  is  compared.  Many  an 
argument  is  employed  a  minori  ad  mains  \  and  I  do 
not  doubt  that  it  was  in  that  sense  that  Mr.  Burkitt 
wished  his  words  to  be  taken,  as  I  should  wish  mine. 


LECTURE    VI 

THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS,    AND    ITS    INFLUENCE    ON 
THE    GOSPEL 

The  Fourth  Gospel  is  like  one  of  those  great 
Egyptian  temples  which  we  may  see  to  this  day  at 
Dendera  or  Edfu  or  Karnak — and  we  remember  that 
the  Temple  on  Mount  Zion  itself  was  of  the  same 
general  type — the  sanctuary  proper  is  approached 
through  a  pylon,  a  massive  structure  overtopping  it  in 
height  and  outflanking  it  on  both  sides.  The  pylon  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel  is  of  course  the  Prologue;  and  this 
raises  at  the  outset  two  important  questions  :  I.  What 
are  the  affinities  of  its  leading  thought ;  or,  in  other 
words,  what  is  its  place  in  the  history  of  thought  and 
the  history  of  religion  ?  and  II.  In  what  relation  does 
the  Prologue  stand  to  the  rest  of  the  Gospel  ?  I  need 
not  say  that  both  these  points  have  been,  and  are 
being  still,  actively  debated. 

I.    Affinities  of  the  Logos  Doctrine. 

The  preponderance  of  opinion  at  the  present  time 
doubtless  leans  to  the  view  that  there  is  some  con- 
nexion between  the  Logos  of  Philo  and  the  doctrine 
of  the  Logos  in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  But  the  question 
is  as  to  the  nature  and  closeness  of  that  connexion. 
On  this  many  shades  of  opinion  are  possible. 


i86  VI.    The  Doctrine  of  the  Logos 

I.  Partial  Parallels  in  O.  T.  and  Judaism. 

If  the  Logos  of  St.  John  is  not  connected  with 
that  of  Philo,  the  alternative  must  be  that  its  origin 
is  Palestinian.  The  directions  in  which  we  should 
look  would  be  to  the  Old  Testament,  the  Apocrypha, 
and  the  Memra  of  the  Targums.  And  it  is  true  that 
there  are  many  places  in  these  writings  in  which  *  the 
Word  of  God '  is  used  with  pregnant  meaning. 

74f  yVjy/f  ^*^  Ps.  xxxiii.  6  ;  '  By  the  word  of  the  Lord  were  the 
uoatao  oi  cu^'  heavens  made  ;  and  all  the  host  of  them  by  the  breath 
dxci  l^'refjrt^'  of  his  mouth.'  Cf.  2  Esdras  vi.  43  :  '  As  soon  as  thy 
^OTtv,  ncCi  'Zy    word  went  forth  the  work  was  done.' 

^r^Jato^  <sC'W      Ps.  cvii.  20 :   *  He  sendeth  his  word,   and    healeth 
^^  y\  /fVw^  ^^  them,  and  delivereth  them  from  their  destructions.' 

dijTcov    -«  Pg  cxlvii.  15  :  'He  sendeth  out  his  commandment 

upon  earth  ;  his  word  runneth  very  swiftly.' 

Ps.   cxlvii.    18:    'He    sendeth  out    his   word,    and 
^  melteth  them  ;  he  causeth  his  wind  to  blow,  and  the 

^TKXTT^/ M*"      waters  flow.' 

^*^  A^ri»^  Isa  xl.  8  :  '  The  grass  withereth,  the  flower  fadeth  : 

dvtA^  '**«  /*7^but  the  word  of  our  God  shall  stand  for  ever.' 

^    'sw^      *^         ^^^*  ^^'  ^°'  ^^  •  '  ^^^  ^^  ^^  ^^^'^  Cometh  down  and 

/  J  '    — ,  ^^  snow  from  heaven,  and  returneth  not  thither,  but 

/^^/^^  ^'^^^'  watereth  the  earth,  and  maketh  it  bring  forth  and  bud, 

YS.  itf^-  /*'  and  giveth  seed  to  the  sower  and  bread  to  the  eater  ; 
cff^o<r7Ai^<ih  so  shall  my  word  be  that  goeth  forth  out  of  my 
foi't/  \^yi>V n-7j<:^^on\.\\  :  It  shall  not  return  unto  me  void,  but  it  shall 

Pr  I   1 ' /^»         accomplish  that  which  I  please,  and  it  shall  prosper  in 

fy  '^  '  the  thing  whereto  I  sent  it' 

Hl^"^^      ^  Wisd.  ix.  I  :  '  O  God  of  the  fathers,  and  Lord  who 

a  Xjf£T»i  j(af       keepest    thy  mercy,   who    madest   all    things    by  thy 
Ta  Sveo^    ^  ^  word.'  ^  ^         ^  „  ,      , 


Affinities  of  the  Logos  Doctrine  187 

Wisd.  xvi.  12  :  '  For  of  a  truth  it  was  neither  herb 
nor  mollifying  plaister  that  cured  them,  but  thy  word, 

0  Lord,  which  healeth  all  things.' 

Wisd.  xviii.  15,  16  :  *  Thine  all-powerful  word  leaped 
from  heaven  out  of  the  royal  throne,  a  stern  warrior, 
into  the  midst  of  the  doomed  land,  bearing  as  a  sharp 
sword  thine  unfeigned  commandment  ;  and  standing  it 
filled  all  things  with  death  ;  and  while  it  touched  the 
heaven  it  trode  upon  the  earth.' 

This  last  passage  goes  furthest  in  the  w^ay  of 
personification.  But  in  the  other  passages  there  is 
a  tendency — we  can  hardly  call  it  more — to  objectify 
the  *  word  of  God '  and  to  treat  it  as  though  it  had 
a  substantive  existence.  This  is,  however,  still  some 
way  short  of  the  Logos  both  of  St.  John  and  of  Philo. 

Rather  more  may  be  said  of  the  Memra  of  the 
Targums.  These  writings  are  indeed,  in  their  extant 
form,  of  uncertain  date.     And  yet  I  suspect,  though 

1  cannot  prove,  that  our  present  texts  faithfully 
preserve  the  interpretative  tradition  of  the  syna- 
gogues. The  same  tendencies  were  at  work  as  far 
back  as  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era,  and  the 
probabilities  are  that  they  expressed  themselves  in  the 
same  way.  The  Jews  were  a  conservative  people  ; 
and  the  '  tradition  of  the  elders '  went  on  continuously 
without  any  real  break. 

We  are  always  hampered  by  our  want  of  knowledge. 
The  works  of  Philo  bulk  large  upon  our  shelves,  and 
their  contents  naturally  impress  the  imagination.  Of 
the  state  of  thought  in  Syria  and  Palestine  we  have 
far  scantier  information.  I  believe  it  to  be  possible 
that  a  doctrine  like  that  of  the  Philonian  Logos  was 


i88  VI.    The  Doctrine  of  the  Logos 

more  widely  diffused  than  we  suppose.  After  all 
Philo  grounded  his  use  of  the  term  largely  upon  the 
Stoics ;  and  the  Stoics  were  spread  all  over  the 
Roman  Empire;  they  were  strong  in  Asia  Minor.  At 
the  same  time  we  should  not  be  justified  in  drawing 
too  much  upon  conjecture,  where  we  have  positive 
data  in  our  hands.  So  far  as  Palestine  goes,  we  have 
traces  of  a  tendency  but  not  of  a  system.  In  both 
Philo  and  St.  John  we  have  what  might  really  be 
called  a  system.  This  creates  a  presumption  that  the 
connexion  between  them  is  not  accidental. 

The  example  of  St.  Paul  may  show  us  what  an 
active  stimulus  to  thought  had  been  given  by 
Christianity.  In  his  case  we  see  what  far-reaching 
consequences  were  drawn  from  concentrated  reflection 
upon  single  detached  verses  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures. 
We  must  not  wholly  put  aside  the  possibility  that  the 
author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  let  his  thoughts  work  in 
the  same  manner.  We  shall  see  presently  that  on 
some  important  topics  he  has  certainly  done  so.  Still, 
if  the  doctrines  of  Philo  came  in  his  way,  the  easier 
hypothesis  would  be  that  he  was  influenced  by  them. 
The  work  of  construction  would  in  that  case  be  lighter 
for  him  ;  he  would  find  the  half  of  it  done  ready  to  his 
hand. 

2.   The  Evangelist  not  a  Philosopher. 

It  is  a  distinct  question  in  what  form  we  are  to 
conceive  of  Philo's  teaching  as  coming  before  him. 
The  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  a  thinker,  but 
not  a  professed  philosopher.     So  far  as  we  can  judge 


Affinities  of  the  Logos  Doctrine  189 

from  the  writings  of  his  that  have  come  down  to  us, 
we  should  not  be  inclined  to  credit  him  with  much 
philosophical  erudition.  The  idea  that  we  form  to 
ourselves  of  the  Evangelist  is  not  that  of  a  great 
reader  always  poring  over  books.  I  find  it  hard  to 
think  of  him  as  sitting  down  to  a  deliberate  study  of 
the  Jewish  scholar's  voluminous  treatises.  The  mental 
habits  of  the  two  men  are  too  different.  The  Evan- 
gelist had  a  shorter  and  more  direct  way  of  getting  at 
the  truth.  He  was  more  like  the  old  Ionian  philo- 
sophers, who  looked  up  to  the  sky  and  out  upon  the 
earth,  and  set  down  the  thoughts  that  rose  in  them  in 
short  loosely  connected  aphorisms.  The  author  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  did  not  look  so  much  without  as 
within  :  he  sank  into  his  own  consciousness,  and  at 
last  brought  out  to  light  what  he  found  there.  He 
dwelt  upon  the  past  until  it  became  luminous  to  him ; 
and  then  he  took  up  the  pen. 

We  will  consider  presently  what  sort  of  hypothesis 
we  may  form  as  to  the  process  by  which  the  Evan- 
gelist came  to  assimilate  Philonian  ideas,  if  he  did 
assimilate  them.  But  it  may  be  well,  first,  to  try  to 
realize  rather  more  exactly  the  extent  of  the  agree- 
ment and  difference  between  the  two  writers. 

3.  Points  of  Agreement  with  Philo. 
And,  first,  as  to  the  agreement.  I  have  said  that 
Philo's  philosophy,  in  spite  of  its  decorative  exuberance 
and  prolixity,  is  yet  at  bottom  a  system.  And  in  the 
main  outline  of  that  system  the  Evangelist  coincides 
with  him. 


igo  VI.    The  Doctrine  of  the  Logos 

By  the  side  of  the  Eternal,  Philo  has  what  he 
himself  called  *  a  second  God '  {irpos  rov  SevTcpov  6^6v,  oy 
i(TTLv  iKdvov  Xoyoy  Grill,  Entstehung  d.  vierten  Evang. 
p.  109);  and  this  second  God  he  called  'the  Divine 
Word,'  The  Word  was  Himself  God  (/caXei  b\  Oehu  tov 
npea^vTaTov  avTOV  vvvl  Xoyou,  ibid,).  The  Word  was  the 
agent  or  instrument  (opyavov)  in  creation  (ibid.,  p.  no). 

The  action  of  the  Word  is  not  infrequently  compared 
to  that  of  Light ;  and  although  it  is  nowhere  said  that 
the  Word  is  Life  \  there  are  contexts  in  which  the 
ideas  of  light  and  life  appear  in  connexion  ^.  In  like 
manner  there  is  a  certain  amount  of  parallelism  for 
the  idea  of  the  Word  coming  to  His  own  and  being 
rejected  ;  it  is  the  Word  that  makes  the  mind  receptive 
of  good  ;  there  are  some  who  may  be  fitly  called  '  sons 
of  God,'  and  those  for  whom  this  title  is  too  high  may 
at  least  model  themselves  after  the  pattern  of  the 
Word.  The  parallels  for  the  later  part  of  the 
Prologue  are  slighter,  until  we  come  to  the  last  verse 
(ver.  18).  Philo  fully  shares  the  conception  of  the 
transcendence  of  God,  and  speaks  of  the  Logos  as 
His  'prophet'  and  '  interpreter  ^' 

There  are  many  coincidences  of  idea  in  the  attributes 
ascribed  to  the  Logos,  as  existing  in  heaven,  as  re- 
vealing die  name  of  God,  as  possessing  supernatural 
knowledge  and  power,  as  continually  at  work,  as  eternal, 
as  free  from   sin,    as   instructing   and   convincing,  as 

'  R^ville,  La  doctrine  du  Logos,  p,  67. 
»  Grill,  p.  218. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  114,  Phllo's  word  for  'interpreter,'  however,  is  not 
cognate  with  that  used  by  St.  John. 


Affinities  of  the  Logos  Doctrine  191 

dwelling  in  the  souls  of  men,  as  high  priest  towards 
God,  as  the  source  of  unity,  of  joy  and  peace,  as 
imparting  eternal  life,  as  bridegroom,  father,  guide, 
steersman,  shepherd,  physician,  as  imparting  manna,  the 
food  of  the  soul  ^ 

I  am  by  no  means  clear  that  the  case  for  the  con- 
nexion of  the  Logos  of  St.  John  with  the  Logos  of 
Philo  is  really  much  strengthened  by  these  parallels. 
If  we  ask  ourselves  whether  they  necessarily  imply 
literary  dependence,  I  think  we  should  have  to  answer 
in  the  negative.  We  have  to  remember  that  Philo 
and  St.  John  alike  have  the  Old  Testament  behind 
them.  Whatever  is  suggested  by  this  may  as  well 
come  from  it  directly,  and  not  through  a  further 
literary  medium.  And,  when  once  we  have  the  idea 
of  the  Logos,  there  are  a  number  of  epithets  and 
metaphors  that  would  go  with  it  almost  of  them- 
selves. 

4.  Absence  of  Philonian  Catchwords, 

On  the  other  hand,  when  we  examine  the  parallels 
adduced  in  detail,  we  cannot  help  noticing  that  many 
catchwords  of  the  Philonian  doctrine  are  entirely 
absent  from  the  Fourth  Gospel :  npecr^vTaTo?  in  many 
connexions  (Grill,  p.  106);  npca^vTaTo^  vlS?  (p.  107); 
rrpcoToyovo^  (pp.  106,  107);  /Ltecroy  TUiv  dKpcov^  dfi(poT(pois 
6fiT]p€VQiv  (p.  106)  ;  Xoyoy  d.18109,  6  eyyvTarco  (sc.  deov^^  eUcov 
vndpyoav  deov  (a  term  which  occurs  in  St.  Paul  and  in  the 
Epistle  to  the   Hebrews,  but  not  in  St.  John) ;  Xoyo^ 

dpyiTVTTO^,    (TKLa    6eOV    (p.     108)  ;    fi(d6pi09    (XTOLS,    /JiidSpiOS    TIS 

'  Grill,  pp.  115-26. 


192  VI.    The  Doctrine  of  the  Logos 

deov  {Kal  dvOpconovy  (f)vai^  (p.   109  f.)  ;   t^p  fiaKapta^  (pv<T€C07 
€Kfj.aye?ov  rj  dn6ar7Ta(Tp.a  fj  diravyaafia  (p.  1 1 5)  ;   Xoyoy  doparo^ 

Kal  (TTTipiiaTLKOS   Kol  TiyVLKO^  Kol   BiLOS   (p.    I  I  2). 

Among  these  expressions  are  several  that  at  an 
early  date  entered  into  Christian  literature,  but  they 
are  not  found  in  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

It  is  probably  to  such  examples  as  these  that  Dr. 
Drummond  refers  when  he  speaks  of  '  the  total  absence 
of  Philo's  special  vocabulary  not  only  in  relation  to 
God,  but  in  regard  to  the  Logos'  {Character,  &c., 
p.  24). 

5.  More  Fundamental  Differences. 

It  is  of  yet  more  importance  that  the  conception 
of  the  Logos  in  Philo  and  in  the  Fourth  Gospel 
presents  great  and  fundamental  differences. 

I  do  not  feel  compelled  to  number  among  these 
that  particular  difference  which  is  at  once  the  most 
obvious  and  the  most  comprehensive.  It  is  of  course 
true  that  the  Evangelist  identifies  the  Logos  with 
the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  whereas  it  is  doubtful 
how  far  the  Philonian  Logos  is  to  be  regarded  as  in 
any  sense  personal.  We  always  need  to  remember 
that  the  whole  category  of  personality  was  wanting 
at  the  time  when  Philo  wrote.  The  question  whether 
such  a  conception  as  that  of  the  Logos  is  personal, 
naturally  forces  itself  upon  us ;  we  have  a  name  for 
it,  and  we  are  accustomed  to  think  of  things  as  either 
personal  or  impersonal.  Philo,  on  the  contrary,  had 
neither  the  name  nor  the  idea  corresponding  to  the 
name.     Hence    we    are    not    surprised    to    find    his 


Affinities  of  the  Logos  Doctrine  193 

language  fluctuating,  to  find  him  sometimes  write  as 
though  the  Logos  were  personal,  and  sometimes  as 
though  it  were  not.  Where  there  is  no  clearly  drawn 
boundary  line  between  two  ideas,  it  is  easy  to  pass 
from  one  to  the  other  without  being  aware  of  it. 

With  St.  John  the  conditions  are  different.  In  any 
case  it  was  he  who  took  the  decisive  step  of  identify- 
ing the  Divine  Word  with  the  person  of  Christ. 
Having  once  done  this,  his  language  necessarily 
became  fixed ;  the  ambiguities  which  attached  to 
Philo's  teaching  were  for  him  so  far  at  an  end.  The 
personal  element  in  the  Johannean  conception  belongs 
not  to  the  idea  of  the  Logos  but  to  the  historical 
Christ;  the  originality  of  the  Evangelist  consists  in 
uniting  the  Christ  of  history  with  the  idea  of  the  Logos, 
but  whether  that  idea  were  personal  or  impersonal  as 
it  came  to  him  was  of  secondary  importance. 

The  divergence  is  really  more  significant  when  we 
observe  that  the  Logos  idea  itself  has  a  different  con- 
tent. The  central  point  in  Philo's  conception  is  the 
philosophic  idea  of  the  Divine  reason  ;  the  centre  of 
St.  John's  is  the  religious  idea  of  the  Divine  word. 
Divine  utterance,  creative,  energizing,  revealing.  If 
we  for  a  moment  cease  to  think  of  the  hypostatic  and 
mediating  aspect  of  the  Word  and  dwell  rather  on  the 
attributes  and  functions  associated  with  it,  we  find 
ourselves  naturally  deserting  Philo  and  going  back  to 
the  Old  Testament.  When  we  glance  over  the  string 
of  passages  quoted  above,  we  see  in  them  a  truer 
counterpart  to  the  real  meaning  of  the  Prologue. 
Ps.  xxxiii.  6,  with  2  Esdras  vi.  43;   Ps.  cxlvii.  15,  18; 


194  ^/.    The  Doctrine  of  the  Logos 

Wisd.  ix.  I,  bring  out  the  creative  activity  of  the  Word; 
[Num.  xi.  23 ;  Hos.  vi.  5]  ;  Isa.  xl.  8  ;  Iv.  10,  11;  Wisd. 
xviii.  15,  16,  bring  out  the  broad  providential,  govern- 
ing and  energizing  activity  ;  Ps.  cvii.  20 ;  Wisd.  xvi. 
12,  emphasize  the  redemptive  activity  in  the  narrower 
sense.  All  these  ideas  really  underlie  the  Prologue, 
though  they  do  not  all  receive  equally  explicit 
expression.  The  dominant  thought  of  the  Prologue 
is  the  thought  of  creation,  revelation  and  redemption 
wrought  by  '  the  living  God ' — that  old  comprehensive 
genuinely  Hebraic  name — but  wrought  by  Him  through 
His  Son,  who  is  also  His  Word. 

The  phrase  that  has  just  been  used  brings  us  round 
to  another  aspect  of  the  Prologue,  which  also  takes 
us  away  from  Philo  and  back  to  the  Old  Testament, 
or  to  sources  still  more  immediately  Christian.  If 
there  is  any  truth  in  the  contention  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  Prologue  governs  the  rest  of  the  Gospel,  it 
must  be  not  directly  as  a  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  but 
rather  (as  has  been  pointed  out  especially  by  Grill 
and  H.  J.  Holtzmann)  indirectly  through  those  two 
great  constituent  conceptions  of  Life  and  Light  which 
together  make  up,  and  are  embraced  under,  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Logos.  The  antecedents  of  these  two 
conceptions  are  to  be  sought  far  more  in  the  Old 
Testament,  and  on  the  direct  line  of  Christian  develop- 
ment, than  in  any  language  of  Philo's.  As  has  just 
been  said,  *  the  living  God '  is  not  only  a  strictly 
Hebraic  and  Old  Testament  idea,  but  one  of  the  most 
fundamental  of  all  the  ideas  of  which  the  Hebrew 
mind  and  the  Old  Testament  have  been  the  vehicles. 


Affinities  of  the  Logos  Doctrine  195 

The  Prologue  to  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  essentially 
based  upon  this  idea,  and  works  it  out  in  a  form  that 
is  also  determined  by  the  Old  Testament.  The  sig- 
nificant combination  of  Life  and  Light,  which  is  so 
characteristic  of  the  Prologue  and  which  so  runs 
through  the  Gospel,  can  hardly  have  any  other  ulti- 
mate source  than  Ps.  xxxvi.  9  :  '  With  thee  is  the 
fountain  of  life ;  in  thy  light  shall  we  see  light,'  the 
first  half  of  which  has  an  important  parallel  in  Jer. 
ii.  13,  'my  people  have  committed  two  evils;  they 
have  forsaken  me  the  fountain  of  living  waters,  and 
hewed  them  out  cisterns,  broken  cisterns,  that  can 
hold  no  water.'  There  is  of  course  the  difference 
that  what  in  the  Old  Testament  is  ascribed  directly 
to  Jehovah,  in  the  Gospel  is  ascribed  to  the  Logos. 
That  is  part  of  the  Evangelist's  method,  which  we 
may  assume  to  be  at  work  all  through.  But  not  only 
does  the  combination  of  Life  and  Light  belong  essen- 
tially to  the  Old  Testament  and  not  to  Philo,  but 
each  of  these  ideas  taken  separately  has  without  doubt 
an  Old  Testament  and  not  a  Philonic  basis.  It  is 
true  enough  that  Philo  makes  use  of  metaphors  de- 
rived from  •  Life '  and  *  Light,'  and  applies  them  to 
the  Logos,  as  he  is  indeed  profuse  in  metaphors  of 
this  character ;  they  are  part  of  his  literary  embroidery. 
It  is  also  quite  possible  that  the  metaphors  were  in 
the  first  instance  suggested  to  him  by  the  same  Old 
Testament  passages.  But  the  use  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel  is  far  deeper  and  more  pregnant  with  meaning. 
It  is  also  rightly  urged  that  the  use  in  the  Gospel, 
more  particularly  of  the  conception  of  Life,  is  really 

o  2 


196  VI.   The  Doctrine  of  the  Logos 

incompatible   with    Philo's   system.     The  teaching  of 
Philo  is  at  bottom  dualistic ;   for  him  matter  is  evil, 
and  his  object  is  to  remove  God  from  contact  with 
it.     In   St.  John   there  is  no   dualism.     The   writer 
conceives  of  matter  as  penetrated  with    the   divine. 
Alike  God  and  the  Word  of  God  work  downwards 
and  outwards,  through  spirit  to  the  material  envelope 
and  vesture  of  spirit.     There  is  no  inconsistency  be- 
tween the  spiritual  and  the  material  quickening,  both 
of  which   are  taught  distinctly  in  the  Gospel.     *  As 
the    Father   raiseth    the  dead  and  quickeneth    them, 
even    so    the   Son   also   quickeneth   whom   he   will' 
(John  V.  21) ;  '  As  the  Father  hath  life  in  himself,  even 
so  gave  he  to  the  Son  also  to  have  life  in  himself 
(ver.  26).     Both  Father  and  Son  are  a  principle  of  life 
which   takes   possession   at   once   of  soul  and   body, 
which   imparts  alike  ethical   and  spiritual  vitality  to 
the  disciple  of  Christ  on  earth,  and  that  eternal  life 
which  is  not  something  distinct  from  this  but  really 
the  continuation  of  it  in  the  world  to  come.     No  one 
can  fail  to  see  the  powerful  comprehensiveness  of  this 
idea,   which    incorporates   and   assimilates   with    ease 
such  Jewish  notions  as  that  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
body,  where  Philo's  dualism  makes  a  break  and  con- 
demns  his   system    either  to  superficiality  or   incon- 
sequence. 

Another  point  that  would  be  of  importance  if  the 
facts  were  really  as  is  often  alleged,  is  the  use  of  the 
term  Paraclete.  Philo,  like  St.  John,  has  this  term  ; 
and  if  it  were  true  that  with  him  too  it  is  a  designa- 
tion of,  or  directly  in  connexion  with,  the  Logos,  that 


Affinities  of  the  Logos  Doctrine  igj 

would  greatly  strengthen  the  case  for  the  view  that 
St.  John  was  really  borrowing  from  him.  But  the 
doubts  on  this  head,  first  raised  by  Heinze,  and  more 
recently  enforced  by  Dr.  Drummond  and  Dr.  Grill, 
appear  to  be  perfectly  valid  \  It  is  not  the  Logos 
that  is  called  Paraclete,  but  the  Cosmos  I 

We  observe  that  the  Cosmos,  which  is  compared  to 
the  high  priest's  vestments,  is  also  described  as  '  son 
(of  God).'  This  is  very  contrary  to  the  usage  of  the 
Evangelist,  for  whom  the  Cosmos  (in  the  sense  in 
which  he  uses  the  word)  is  far  more  the  enemy  of 
God  than  His  son. 

All  these  points  together  make  up  a  wide  divergence 
between  Philo's  doctrine  and  that  of  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
They  go  far  to  justify  Harnack's  epigrammatic  saying 
that  '  even  the  Logos  has  Httle  more  in  common  with 
that  of  Philo  than  the  name,  and  its  mention  at  the 
beginning  of  the  book  is  a  mystery,  not  the  solution 
of  one'  (I/istory  of  Dogma,  i.  97).  We  may  discount 
the  epigram  a  little,  as  one  has  to  discount  all  epi- 
grams ;  but  when  we  have  done  this,  there  remains 
in  it  a  large  and  substantial  truth. 

6.  Possible  Avenues  of  Connexion. 

It  does  not  follow  that  I  would  deny  all  connexion 
between  the  Philonian  Logos  and  St.  John's.  My 
doubt  is  whether  this  connexion  can  have  been 
literary.  I  find  it  difficult  to  picture  to  myself  the 
Evangelist  sitting  down  to  master  the  diffuse  tomes 

^  Drummond,  Philo  Judaeus,  ii.  237-9;  Grill,  pp.  133-6. 
*  The  main  passage  is  Vit.  Mos.  iii.  14. 


198  VI.    The  Doctrine  of  the  Logos 

of  Philo.  Where  is  the  interest  that  would  impel 
him  to  do  this  ?  Philo  is  a  student  and  a  philo- 
sopher. He  is  a  philosopher  who  operates  with  a 
sacred  text,  and  therefore  has  unlimited  opportunity 
for  applying  and  expounding  his  philosophy.  But 
the  Evangelist  is  interested  in  none  of  his  theorems 
for  their  own  sake.  There  is  only  one  thing  that  he 
seeks.  He  wants  a  formula  to  express  the  cosmical 
significance  of  the  Person  of  Christ.  When  he  has 
got  that,  he  is  satisfied.  For  the  purpose  of  filling 
up  his  formula  and  working  out  its  meaning,  he  goes 
not  to  Philo  but  to  the  Old  Testament.  There,  and 
in  his  own  experience,  he  finds  all  the  data  that  he 
needs. 

I  believe  that  there  is  a  connexion  between  Greek, 
or  Hellenistic,  speculation  and  the  Fourth  Gospel.  But 
I  can  conceive  of  this  best  through  the  medium  of 
personal  intercourse  and  controversy.  How  did  St.  Paul 
get  his  first  knowledge  of  Christianity  ?  Doubtless 
through  his  own  vehement  attacks  upon  Christians, 
which  he  found  so  calmly  and  steadfastly  resisted ;  or, 
it  may  be,  through  the  disputations  in  the  synagogues 
and  in  the  law  courts,  of  which  he  was  the  witness. 
We  may  well  believe  that  St.  John  extended  his 
knowledge  in  the  same  way.  Partly  he  would  learn 
from  foe,  and  partly  from  friend.  In  a  place  like 
Ephesus  he  would  from  time  to  time  hold  controversy 
with  philosophers  of  the  stamp  of  Justin.  But,  apart 
from  this,  in  the  Christian  community  itself  he  would 
find  germs  of  teaching  such  as  had  been  planted  by  the 
Alexandrian  Jew  Apollos.     We  are  left  to  conjecture; 


Affinities  of  the  Logos  Doctrine  199 

and  we  have  so  few  positive  data  to  go  upon,  that  our 
conjectures  are  of  necessity  vague.  The  Evangelist 
need  not  have  waited  for  his  arrival  in  Ephesus  to  come 
in  contact  with  the  idea  of  the  Logos,  not  perhaps  in  its 
full  Philonian  form  but  in  a  form  that  might  lead  up  to 
the  Philonian.  Philo  (as  we  have  seen)  drew  largely 
from  the  Stoics ;  and  there  were  Stoics  in  the  cities  of 
Decapolis  \  At  a  centre  like  Antioch  they  would  be 
found  in  greater  numbers ;  and  at  such  a  centre  it 
would  be  quite  possible  to  fall  in  with  a  wandering 
disciple  or  disciples  of  Philo.  I  have  long  thought 
that  it  would  facilitate  our  reconstruction  of  the  history 
of  early  Christian  thought,  if  we  could  assume  an 
anticipatory  stage  of  Johannean  teaching,  localized 
somewhere  in  Syria,  before  the  Apostle  reached  his 
final  home  at  Ephesus.  This  would  account  more 
easily  than  any  other  hypothesis  for  the  traces  of  this 
kind  of  teaching  in  the  Didachd,  and  in  Ignatius,  as 
well  as  in  some  of  the  earliest  Gnostic  systems. 

We  cannot  verify  anything.  We  have  no  materials 
for  the  purpose.  We  can  only  deal  a  little  with  proba- 
bilities. But  behind  all  probabilities  it  is  enough  for 
us  to  know  that  there  must  have  been  many  avenues 

^  That  accomplished  scholar  P.  Wendland  points  to  the  tendency 
to  attach  the  Stoical  idea  of  the  \6yos  specially  to  Hermes  and  the 
Egyptian  Thoth.     He  quotes  from  Cornutus  {temp.  Nero)  rvy^""*'  ^< 

6  'Epfiiis  6  Xoyof  &v,  ov  dnfCTTfiXap  npos  fifias  f^  ovpavov  oi  6toi.      Hermes 

is  the  messenger  of  the  gods,  and  communicates  their  will  to  men ; 
and  it  is  conceivable  that  the  use  of  the  term  \6yos  in  connexion 
with  him  may  have  in  some  slight  degree  suggested,  or  prepared 
the  way  for,  its  use  in  connexion  with  the  new  revelation.  See 
Christentum  u.  Hellenismus  (1902),  p.  7. 


200  VI.    The  Doctrine  of  the  Logos 

by  which  the  conception  of  the  Logos  may  well  have 
reached  the  Apostle  besides  that  of  the  direct  and 
systematic  study  of  the  writings  of  Philo. 


II.  Relation  of  the  Prologue  to  the  rest  of  the  Gospel. 
I.  View  of  Harnack. 

Mention  has  been  made  above  of  Harnack's  view  as 
to  the  relation  of  the  Prologue  to  the  main  body  of  the 
Gospel.  He  holds  that  the  Prologue  is  really  separ- 
able from  this,  that  it  is  of  the  nature  of  a  postscript, 
or  after-thought,  rather  than  a  preface.  He  regards  it 
as  not  so  much  the  statement  of  a  programme  to  be 
worked  out  in  the  Gospel  as  a  sort  of '  covering  letter,* 
intended  to  commend  the  work  to  cultivated  Gentile 
or  Hellenistic  readers. 

This  view  has  in  its  favour  the  obvious  fact  that  the 
word  Xoyos,  wherever  it  occurs  in  the  body  of  the 
Gospel,  is  used  in  its  ordinary  and  familiar  sense,  and 
not  in  the  special  sense  given  to  it  in  the  Prologue. 
In  face  of  this  fact  it  seems  at  first  sight  difficult  to 
treat  the  Prologue  as  containing  the  leading  idea  that 
runs  through  and  determines  the  character  of  the  rest 
of  the  Gospel.  And  yet  it  is  well  known  that  many 
writers  have  so  treated  it — and  conspicuously  the  two 
French  scholars,  M.  Jean  R^ville  and  the  Abb^  Loisy. 

There  are  two  ways  of  escaping  the  inference  just 
referred  to.  One  is  that  of  which  I  have  just  been 
speaking,  the  method  adopted  by  Dr.  Julius  Grill  in 
his  recent  work  on  the  origin  of  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
to  take  as  the  leading  idea,  not  the  Logos  but  the 


Relation  of  the  Prologue  to  the  Gospel     201 

combination  of  Life  and  Light  which  the  EvangeHst 
gives  as  equivalent  to  the  Logos  \  The  other  is  to 
follow  in  the  track  of  M.  Loisy,  and  to  treat  the 
doctrine  of  the  Logos  as  a  summary  name  for  the 
whole  'theology  of  the  Incarnation 2.' 

2.    View  of  Grill. 

It  is  easy  (as  I  have  said)  to  bring  under  the  head 
of  Life  and  Light  all  the  miracles  in  the  Gospel,  from 
the  miracle  at  Cana  down  to  the  Raising  of  Lazarus  and 
even  the  miraculous  Draught  of  Fishes  in  chap.  xxi. 
Both  the  first  '  sign '  and  the  last  are  instances  of  the 
assertion  of  creative  power,  and  the  Healing  of  the 
Blind  Man  in  chap,  ix,  where  this  aspect  is  more  sub- 
ordinate, illustrates  the  activity  of  Christ  as  the  Light 
of  the  World,  a  text  on  which  the  concluding  paragraph 
of  the  chapter  enlarges. 

Besides  the  miracles  there  are  many  other  allusions 
to  these  ideas  of  Life  and  Light :  notably  to  the  '  living 
water'  in  the  discourse  with  the  Samaritan  woman 
(John  iv.  10-14);  to  the  'bread  of  life'  in  the  dis- 
course in  the  synagogue  of  Capernaum  (vi.  31-58); 
in  the  comment  apparently  suggested  by  the  libation 
at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  (vii.  37  f) ;  in  the  sayings 
on  Light  in  viii.  12,  xi.  9  f ,  as  well  as  in  chap.  ix. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  at  all  that  these  ideas  of 

*  Entstehung  d.  vierten  Evang.  i.  4-31,  87  ff. 

'  Le  Quatriivie  Evangile,  p.  98  :  '  Les  observations  prect^dentes  et 
tout  ce  qu'on  a  remarque  touchant  le  caractt^re  du  quatrienie  Kvangile 
prouvent  suffisamment  que  la  theologie  de  Tincarnation  est  la  clef  du 
livre  tout  entier,  et  qu'elle  le  domine  depuis  la  premiere  ligne  jusqu'a 
la  derniere.' 


202  VI.    The  Doctrine  of  the  Logos 

Light  and  Life  are  quite  fundamental  to  the  Evange- 
list, and  that  they  fill  a  large  place  in  his  mind.  But 
to  say  this  is  not  quite  the  same  thing  as  to  say 
that  the  Gospel  is  constructed  upon  them.  The 
Evangelist  has  told  us  in  set  terms  on  what  the 
ground-plan  of  his  Gospel  is  constructed ;  '  these 
(things)  are  written,  that  ye  may  believe  that  Jesus 
is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God ;  and  that  believing 
ye  may  have  life  in  his  name'  (xx.  31).  There 
is  no  need  to  seek  for  any  other  definition  of  the 
object  and  plan  of  the  Gospel  than  this. 

3.    View  of  Loisy, 

The  same  verse  may  help  us  to  form  an  estimate 
of  the  theory  of  M.  Loisy.  So  far  as  'the  theology 
of  the  Incarnation '  is  meant  to  express  the  same 
thing,  the  phrase  is  certainly  justified.  And  if 
M.  Loisy  intends  it  to  be  at  the  same  time  a  para- 
phrase for  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  we  can  have 
no  objection.  At  least  the  only  objection  we  need 
have  would  be  that  he  is  using  a  vaguer  and  more 
general  term,  when  he  might  use  one  that  is  both 
definite  and  characteristic.  As  a  rule,  one  is  more 
likely  to  get  at  the  heart  of  a  writer's  meaning  by 
laying  stress  on  the  peculiar  and  individual  elements 
in  his  teaching,  and  not  on  that  which  he  shares 
with  others. 

But  the  question  how  far  either  M.  Loisy  or  Dr. 
Grill  has  succeeded  in  defining  the  root-idea  of  the 
Gospel  is  after  all  only  secondary.  The  real  issue 
is   not  as  to   the  accuracy  of  the   definition,   but   as 


Relation  of  the  Prologue  to  the  Gospel     203 

to  the  nature  of  the  relation  which  is  presupposed 
between  the  root-idea,  the  principle  which  covers  the 
plan  and  object  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  narrative  of 
which  the  main  body  of  the  Gospel  consists.  If 
I  may  speak  for  a  moment  of  the  leading  idea,  not 
of  St.  John  but  of  M.  Loisy,  I  am  afraid  that  the 
tendency,  if  not  the  purpose,  of  his  whole  book  is  to 
convict  the  author  of  the  Gospel  of  writing  fiction 
where  he  professes  to  write  fact.  '  The  theology  of 
the  Incarnation '  is  a  euphemism  which  is  meant  to 
describe  the  Gospel  as  from  end  to  end  allegory  and 
symbol,  the  product  of  an  idea  and  not  of  reality. 

M.  Loisy,  we  all  know,  occupies  a  peculiar  position. 
His  criticism  is  radical  and  destructive,  but  he  believes 
himself  to  bring  back  as  faith  what  his  criticism  has 
destroyed.  Few  recent  writers  have  left  less  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  standing  as  solid  history ;  but  at 
the  same  time  he  is  a  dutiful  son  of  his  Church,  and 
what  the  Church  accepts  he  also  accepts  as  true. 
There  can  hardly  be  any  doubt  that  the  Church, 
as  far  back  as  we  can  trace  its  convictions,  regarded 
the  Fourth  Gospel  as  strictly  historical.  If  it  had  not 
done  so,  it  is  very  questionable  whether  the  Church 
itself  would  have  taken  the  shape  it  did.  There  are 
many  in  these  days  who,  if  they  followed  M,  Loisy 
as  a  critic,  would  find  it  very  hard  to  follow  him  as 
a  theologian.  They  are  not  a  little  perplexed  to 
understand  how  he  himself  can  reconcile  the  two 
trains  of  his  thinking.  That,  however,  is  his  own 
affair,  with  which  outsiders  are  not  concerned.  But 
they  are  greatly  concerned  to  know  whether  or  not 


204  ^^-    The  Doctrine  of  the  Logos 

his  criticism  is  sound.  There  is  no  doubt  at  all  that  the 
Fourth  Gospel  expresses  the  Evangelist's  *  theology 
of  the  Incarnation.'  It  expresses  it,  but  is  it  the 
product  of  it  ?  Has  it  no  more  substantial  foundation 
than  an  idea  }  Is  it  history,  or  is  it  fiction  .<*  That 
is  the  great  and  vital  question  to  which  we  must 
address  ourselves  more  directly  in  the  next  lecture. 


'',C, 


LECTURE    VII 

THE    CHRISTOLOGY    OF    THE    GOSPEL 

I .   The  Gospel  not  a  Biography. 

Once  more  we  fall  back  upon  our  main  position. 
The  Evangelist  is  writing  a  spiritual  Gospel,  and  his 
whole  procedure  is  dominated  by  that  one  fact.  His 
object  is  to  set  forth  Christ  as  Divine,  not  only  as 
Messiah  but  as  Son  of  God,  as  an  object  of  faith 
which  brings  life  to  the  believer. 

It  follows  that  all  criticism  which  does  not  take 
account  of  this — and  how  large  a  part  of  the  strictures 
upon  the  Gospel  does  not  take  account  of  it ! — is  really 
wide  of  the  mark.  M.  Loisy,  for  instance,  brings  a  long 
indictment  against  the  Gospel  for  not  containing  things 
that  it  never  professed  to  contain.  It  never  professed 
to  be  a  complete  picture  of  the  Life  of  the  Lord.  It 
never  professed  to  show  Him  in  a  variety  of  human 
relationships.  It  never  professed  to  give  specimens 
of  His  ethical  teaching  simply  as  such.  It  did  not 
profess  to  illustrate,  and  it  does  not  illustrate,  even 
the  lower  side  of  those  activities  that  might  be  called 
specially  divine,  as  (e.  g.)  the  casting  out  of  demons. 

The  Gospel  is  written  upon  the  highest  plane 
throughout.  It  seeks  to  answer  the  question  who 
it   was   that   appeared   upon   earth,  and  suffered   on 


2o6        VII.    The  Christology  of  the  Gospel 

Calvary,  and  rose  from  the  dead  and  left  disciples 
who  revered  and  adored  Him.  And  this  Evangelist 
takes  a  flight  beyond  his  fellows  inasmuch  as  he  asks 
the  question  who  Christ  was  in  His  essential  nature: 
What  was  the  meaning — not  merely  the  local  but  the 
cosmical  meaning — of  this  great  theophany  ? 

It  is  not  surprising  if  in  the  pursuit  of  this  object 
the  Evangelist  has  laid  himself  open  to  the  charge  of 
being  partial  or  onesided.  Those  who  use  such  terms 
are  really,  as  we  have  seen,  judging  by  the  standard 
of  the  modern  biography,  which  is  out  of  place.  The 
Gospel  is,  admittedly  and  deliberately,  not  an  attempt 
to  set  forth  the  whole  of  a  life,  but  just  a  selection 
of  scenes,  a  selection  made  with  a  view  to  a  limited 
and  sharply-defined  purpose.  The  complaint  is  made 
that  it  is  monotonous,  and  the  complaint  is  not  without 
reason.  The  monotony  was  involved,  we  might  say, 
from  the  outset  in  the  concentration  of  aim  which  the 
writer  himself  acknowledges.  And  in  addition  to  this 
it  is  characteristic  of  the  writer  that  his  thought  is 
of  the  type  which  revolves  more  than  it  progresses. 
The  picture  has  not  that  lifelike  effect  which  is  given 
by  the  setting  of  a  single  figure  in  a  variety  of  circum- 
stances. The  variety  of  circumstance  was  included 
among  those  bodily  or  external  aspects  {tcl  aco/ianKa) 
which  the  writer  considered  to  have  been  sufficiently 
treated  by  his  predecessors.  He  described  for  him- 
self a  narrower  circle.  And  it  was  because  he  kept 
within  that  circle,  because  he  goes  on  striking  the 
same  chord,  that  we  receive  the  impression  of  repeti- 
tion  and   monotony.      Perhaps   the   intensity   of  the 


The  Gospel  not  a  Biography  207 

effect  makes  up  for  its  want  of  extension.  But  at 
any  rate  the  Evangelist  was  within  his  rights  in 
choosing  his  own  programme,  and  we  must  not  blame 
him  for  doing  what  he  undertook  to  do. 

We  may  blame  him,  however,  if  within  his  self-chosen 
limits  the  picture  that  he  has  drawn  for  us  is  mis- 
leading. That  is  the  central  point  which  we  must 
now  go  on  to  test.  The  object  of  the  Gospel  would 
be  called  in  modern  technical  language  to  exhibit 
a  Christology.  Is  that  Christology  true  ?  Does  it 
satisfy  the  tests  that  we  are  able  to  apply  to  it  ?  Can 
we  find  a  suitable  place  for  it  in  the  total  conception 
that  we  form  of  the  Apostolic  Age  ?  Does  it  belong 
to  the  Apostolic  Age  at  all ;  or  must  we,  to  understand 
it,  come  down  below  the  time  of  the  Apostles  ?  To 
answer  these  questions  we  must  compare  the  Christo- 
logy of  the  Fourth  Gospel  with  that  of  the  other 
Apostolic  writings,  and  more  particularly  with  that 
of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  of  St.  Paul,  and  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews. 

It  does  not  take  us  long  to  see  that  the  Christology 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel  has  the  closest  affinity  with  this 
group  of  Epistles — we  may  say,  with  the  leading 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul  and  with  that  other  interesting 
Epistle  of  which  we  know,  perhaps,  or  partly  know, 
the  readers  but  do  not  know  the  author.  It  is  worth 
while  to  bring  in  this  because  the  unmistakable  quota- 
tion from  it  in  Clement  of  Rome  proves  it  to  belong 
to  the  Apostolic  Age. 


2o8        VII.    The  Christology  of  the  Gospel 

2.   The  Christology  of  St.  John  compared  with  that 
of  St.  Paul  and  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

The  meeting-point  of  all  the  authorities  just  men- 
tioned— indeed  we  might  say  the  focus  and  centre  of 
the  whole  New  Testament — is  the  title  *  Son  of  God.' 
But  whereas  the  Synoptic  Gospels  work  up  to  this 
title,  St.  John  with  St.  Paul  and  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  work  downwards  or  onwards  from  it.  What 
I  mean  is  this.  The  Synoptic  Gospels  show  us  how, 
through  the  conception  of  the  Messiah  and  the  titles 
equivalent  to  it,  by  degrees  a  point  was  reached  at 
which  the  faith  of  the  disciples  found  its  most  adequate 
expression  in  the  name  '  Son  of  God.'  The  cul- 
minating point  is  of  course  St.  Peter's  confession 
represented  at  its  fullest  in  the  form  adopted  by 
St.  Matthew,  *  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living 
God'  (Matt.  xvi.  i6).  In  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  and 
we  may  say  also  in  the  historic  order  of  events,  this 
confession  is  a  climax,  gradually  reached ;  and  we  are 
allowed  to  see  the  process  by  which  it  was  reached. 
'  Son  of  God '  is  the  highest  of  all  the  equivalents  for 
'  Messiah.'  And  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  we  have 
unrolled  before  us,  wonderfully  preserved  by  a  re- 
markable and  we  may  say  truly  providential  accuracy 
of  reproduction  with  hardly  the  consciousness  of  a 
guiding  idea,  the  historic  evolution,  spread  over  the 
whole  of  the  public  ministry,  by  which  at  its  end 
the  little  knot  of  disciples  settled  upon  this  term  as 
the  best  and  amplest  expression  of  its  belief  in  its 
Master. 


Comparison  with  St.  Paul  and  Ep.  to  Hebrews    209 

We  have  seen  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  by  no 
means  wanting  in  traces  of  this  evolution.  But  these 
too  are  traces,  preserved  incidentally  and  almost  acci- 
dentally, without  any  deliberate  purpose  on  the  part 
of  the  author :  they  are  the  product  of  his  historical 
sense,  as  distinct  from  the  special  object  and  the  large 
idea  that  he  had  before  his  mind  in  writing  his  Gospel. 
This  special  object  and  large  idea  presuppose  the  title 
as  it  were  full-blown.  It  was  not  to  be  expected  that 
an  evangelist  sitting  down  to  write  towards  the  end 
of  the  first  century  should  unwind  the  threads  of  the 
skein  which,  some  fifty  or  sixty  years  before,  had 
brought  his  consciousness  to  the  point  where  it  was. 
To  him  looking  back,  the  evolutionary  process  was 
foreshortened ;  and  we  have  seen  that  as  a  con- 
sequence he  allowed  the  language  that  he  used  about 
the  beginning  of  the  ministry  to  be  somewhat  more 
definite  than  on  strictly  historical  principles  it  should 
have  been.  That  he  should  do  so  was  natural  and 
inevitable — indeed  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
standards  of  his  time  there  was  no  reason  why  he 
should  be  on  his  guard  against  such  anticipations. 
If  we  distinguish  between  the  gradual  unfolding  of 
the  narrative  and  the  total  conception  present  to 
the  mind  of  the  writer  throughout  from  the  beginning, 
we  should  say  that  this  conception  assumes  for  Christ 
the  fullest  significance  of  Divine  Sonship. 

More  than  this  :  we  see,  when  we  come  to  study 
the  Gospel  in  detail,  that  the  writer  not  only  assumes 
the  full  idea  of  Sonship  but  has  also  dwelt  upon  it 
and  thought  about  it  and  followed  it  out  through  all 


2IO        VII.    The  Christology  of  the  Gospel 

the  logic  of  its  contents.  We  may  say  that  it  is  not 
only  he  that  has  done  so  but  practically  all  the  thinking 
portion  of  the  Church  of  his  time.  We  may  see  this 
from  the  comparison  of  St.  Paul  and  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  not  to  speak  of  other  New  Testament 
writers.  The  Synoptists  hardly  come  under  the  head 
of  thinkers.  They  are  content  to  set  down  facts  and 
impressions  without  analysis  and  without  reflection. 
But  long  before  St.  John  sat  down  to  write,  those  who 
really  were  thinkers  had  evidently  asked  themselves 
what  was  the  meaning  and  what  was  the  origin  of  that 
title  'Son  of  God'  by  which  the  Church  was  agreed 
to  desio^nate  its  Master.  The  more  active  minds  had 
evidently  pressed  the  inquiry  far  home.  They  did 
not  stop  short  at  the  Baptism ;  they  did  not  stop  short 
at  the  Birth  :  they  saw  that  the  Divine  Sonship  of 
Christ  stretched  back  far  beyond  these  recent  events  ; 
they  saw  that  it  was  rooted  in  the  deepest  depths  of 
Godhead,  It  is  true  both  of  St.  Paul  and  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews — that  is,  assuming  that  the 
Epistle  to  the  Colossians  is  St.  Paul's — that  they  have 
not  only  the  doctrine  of  the  Son  but  the  doctrine  of 
the  Logos,  all  but  the  name. 

Now  I  know  that  there  are  many  who  will  not 
agree  with  me ;  I  know  also  that  the  position  is 
not  easy  to  prove,  though,  as  we  shall  see,  I  believe 
that  there  are  a  number  of  definite  facts  that  at 
least  suggest  it.  But  for  myself  I  suspect  so 
strongly  as  to  be  practically  sure  that  in  these 
processes  of  thought  the  apostolic  theologians,  as 
we    may    call    them,    were    not    altogether    original. 


Comparison  zvith  St.  Paul  and  Ep.  to  Hcbrezvs    211 

They  were  not  without  a  precursor ;  they  did  not 
invent  their  ideas  for  the  first  time.  I  beheve 
that  we  shall  most  reasonably  account  for  the  whole 
set  of  phenomena  if  we  suppose  that  there  had  been 
intimations,  hints,  Anhaltspunkte,  in  the  discourses  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  Himself.  We  have  as  a  matter 
of  fact  such  hints  or  intimations  in  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
The  Evangelist  may  have  expanded  and  accentuated 
them  a  little — he  may  have  dotted  the  i's  and  crossed 
the  t's — but  I  believe  that  it  is  reasonable  to  hold 
that  they  had  been  really  there.  The  Founding  of 
Christianity  is  in  any  case  a  very  great  phenomenon ; 
and  it  seems  to  me  simpler  and  easier,  and  in  all  ways 
more  probable,  to  refer  the  features  which  constitute 
its  greatness  to  a  single  source,  to  the  one  source  which 
is  really  the  fountain-head  of  all.  Without  that  one 
source  the  others  would  never  have  been  what  they 
were. 

The  fact  that  St.  Paul  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
had  substantially  arrived  at  a  Logos  doctrine  before 
any  extant  writing  has  mentioned  the  name,  seems  to 
throw  light  on  the  order  of  thought  by  which  the 
Fourth  Evangelist  himself  arrived  at  his  doctrine  of 
the  Logos.  It  is  the  coping-stone  of  the  whole  edifice, 
not  the  foundation-stone.  It  is  a  comprehensive  syn- 
thesis which  unites  under  one  head  a  number  of 
scattered  ideas.  From  this  point  of  view  it  would  be 
more  probable  that  the  Prologue  to  the  Fourth  Gospel 
was  a  true  preface,  written  after  the  rest  of  the  work 
to  sum  up  and  bind  together  in  one  mighty  paragraph 
the  ideas  that  are  really  leading  ideas,  though  scattered 

p  2 


212        VII.    The  Christology  of  the  Gospel 

up  and  down  the  Gospel.  Whedier  it  was  actually 
written  last  does  not  matter.  What  I  mean  is  that  the 
philosophic  synthesis  of  the  events  recorded  in  the 
Gospel  came  to  the  Evangelist  last  in  the  order  of  his 
thought ;  the  order  was,  history  first  and  then  philo- 
sophic synthesis  of  the  history.  No  doubt  the  synthesis 
was  really  complete  before  the  Apostle  began  to  write 
his  Gospel ;  the  writing  of  the  Prologue  may  or  may 
not  have  followed  the  order  of  his  thought.  It  may 
have  been,  as  Harnack  thinks,  a  sort  of  commendatory 
letter  sent  out  with  the  Gospel ;  or  it  may  be  that  the 
Gospel  was  written  out  in  one  piece  upon  a  plan  present 
from  the  first  to  the  writer's  mind.  The  order  of 
genesis  and  the  order  of  production  do  not  always 
coincide  ;  and  it  is  really  a  very  secondary  consideration 
whether  in  any  particular  instance  they  did  or  not. 

We  do  not  know  exactly  at  what  stage  in  his  career 
the  Evangelist  grasped  the  idea  of  the  Logos.  We 
should  be  inclined  to  think  comparatively  late,  from 
the  fact  that  it  has  not  been  allowed  to  intrude  into 
the  historical  portion  of  the  Gospel.  The  various  ideas 
which  are  summed  up  under  the  conception  of  the 
Logos  appear  there  independently  and  in  other  con- 
nexions. As  we  have  just  seen,  in  St.  Paul  also  and 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  the  arch  is  fully  formed 
before  the  key-stone  is  dropped  into  it. 

Whatever  we  may  think  about  this,  there  is  a  close 
parallelism  between  the  whole  theology,  including  the 
Christology,  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  John.  Both  start  from 
the  thought  of  an  Incarnation  (John  i.  14  ;  Rom.  viii.  3  ; 
Gal.  iv.  4 ;  Phil.  ii.  7,  8  ;  Col.  i.  15  ;  and  with  the  latter 


Comparison  zvith  St.  Paid  and  Ep.  to  Hehreivs    213 

part  of  the  same  verse,  cp.  Col.  i.  19;  ii.  9).  In  both 
St.  John  and  St.  Paul  the  union  of  the  Son  with  the 
Father  is  not  only  moral  but  a  union  of  essential  nature 
(cp.  John  i.  I,  2,  14;  X.  30,  38;  xiv.  10,  11,  20;  xvii. 
21,  23  with  2  Cor.  V.  19;  Col.  i.  13,  15,  19;  ii.  9). 
Between  the  Son  and  the  Father  there  is  the  bond  of 
mutual  love,  of  a  love  supreme  and  unique  (that  is  the 
real  meaning  of  iiovoy^vrjs  in  John  i.  14,  18;  cp.  xvii. 
23,  24,  26  and  Rom.  viii.  3,  32  ;  Eph.  i.  6  ;  Col.  i.  13). 
As  a  consequence  of  this  relation  between  the  Son  and 
the  Father,  which  has  its  roots  in  the  eternal  past 
(John  i.  I,  2;  xvii.  5,  24),  there  was  also  complete 
union  of  will  in  the  work  of  the  Son  upon  earth 
(John  V.  30;  vi.  38;  xiv.  31;  xvii.  16:  cp.  Phil, 
ii.  8;  Heb.  v.  7,  8).  Thus  the  acts  of  the  Son  are 
really  the  acts  of  the  Father,  the  natural  expression 
of  that  perfect  intimacy  in  which  they  stand  to  each 
other  (v.  19,  20;  viii.  29;  x.  25,  2>7^  Z^)-  The 
reciprocity  between  them  is  absolute,  it  is  seen  in 
the  perfection  of  their  mutual  knowledge  (vii.  29 ; 
viii.  19;  X.  15;  xvii.  25);  so  that  the  teaching  of 
the  Son  is  really  the  teaching  of  the  Father  (vii.  16; 
viii.  26,  28,38;  xii.  49,  50;  xiv.  10,  24;  xv.  15).  What 
the  Son  is,  the  Father  also  is.  Hence  the  life  and 
character  and  words  of  the  Son,  taken  as  a  whole,  con- 
stitute a  revelation  of  the  Father  such  as  had  never 
been  given  before  (vi.  46  ;  xiv.  7-10:  cp.  i.  14,  18)  ^ 

Thus  we  are  brought  to  another  central  idea  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  the  function  of  the  Son  as  revealing 

^  A  few  sentences  here  are  repeated  from  my  article  in  Hastings, 
n.B.  iv.  575. 


214        VII.    The  Christology  of  the  Gospel 

the  Father.     For  this,  again,  we  have  a  parallel  in  an 
impassioned  passage  of  St.  Paul : 

'  The  god  of  this  world  hath  blinded  the  minds  of 
the  unbelieving,  that  the  light  of  the  gospel  of  the 
glory  of  Christ,  who  is  the  image  of  God,  should  not 
dawn  upon  them.  For  we  preach  not  ourselves,  but 
Christ  Jesus  as  Lord,  and  ourselves  as  your  servants 
for  Jesus'  sake.  Seeing  it  is  God,  that  said.  Light 
shall  shine  out  of  darkness,  who  shined  in  our  hearts, 
to  give  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God 
in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ'  (2  Cor.  iv.  4-6). 

It  may  be  true  that  this  idea,  though  central  with 
St.  John,  is  subordinate  with  St.  Paul ;  but  it  is 
distincdy  recognized — just  as,  conversely,  the  doctrine 
of  the  Atonement,  though  clearly  implied,  is  less 
prominent  with  St.  John  than  with  St.   Paul. 

The  close  resemblance  between  the  teaching  of 
St.  John  and  St.  Paul  does  not  end  with  the  exposi- 
tion of  the  character  and  mission  of  the  incarnate  Son  ; 
it  is  exhibited  no  less  in  what  is  said  about  the  Holy 
Spirit.  The  teaching  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  on  the 
subject  of  the  Spirit  repeats  in  a  remarkable  way 
certain  leading  features  in  its  teaching  about  the  Son. 
The  Father  is  in  the  Son  (as  we  have  seen),  and  the 
Son  is  one  with  the  Father ;  and  yet  the  Son  is  distinct 
(in  the  language  of  later  theology,  a  distinct  Person) 
from  the  Father ;  and  in  like  manner  the  Paraclete  is 
'another'  than  the  Son  (xiv.  16),  and  is  sent  by  the 
Son  (xv.  26  ;  xvi.  7)  ;  and  yet  in  the  coming  of  the 
Spirit  the  Son  Himself  returns  to  His  people  (xiv.  18; 
cf  iii.  28). 

Here  again  the  parallel  is  quite  remarkable  between 


Comparison  with  St.  Paul  and  Ep.  to  Hebrews    215 

St.  Paul  and  St.  John.  If  we  take  a  passage  like 
Rom.  viii.  9-1 1  we  see  that,  in  this  same  connexion  of 
the  work  of  the  indwelling  Spirit  among  the  faithful, 
He  is  described  at  one  moment  as  the  Spirit  of  God, 
at  another  as  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  and  almost  in  the 
same  breath  we  have  the  phrase,  '  If  Christ  is  in  you  ' 
as  an  equivalent  for  '  If  the  Spirit  of  Christ  is  in  you.' 
The  latter  phrase  is  fuller  and  more  exact,  but  with 
St.  Paul,  as  well  as  with  St.  John,  it  is  Christ  Himself 
who  comes  to  His  own  in  His  Spirit. 

No  writer  that  I  know  has  worked  out  the  whole  of 
this  relation  with  more  philosophical  and  theological 
fullness  and  accuracy  than  Dr.  Moberly  in  his  Atonement 
and  Personality.  And  I  am  tempted  to  quote  one 
short  passage  of  his  (where  I  should  like  to  quote 
many),  because  it  seems  to  me  to  sum  up  in  few  words 
the  fundamental  teaching  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  John. 

*  Christ  in  you,  or  the  Spirit  of  Christ  in  you  ;  these 
are  not  different  realities ;  but  the  one  is  the  method 
of  the  other.  It  is  in  the  Person  of  Christ  that  the 
Eternal  God  is  revealed  in  manhood  to  man.  It  is  in 
the  Person  of  His  Spirit  that  the  Incarnate  Christ  is 
Personally  present  within  the  spirit  of  each  several 
man.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  mainly  revealed  to  us  as 
the  Spirit  of  the  Incarnate^.' 

It  is  to  the  language  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  John  that 
we  go  for  proof  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  Person ;  but 
it  is  also  from  their  language  that  we  learn  how  inti- 
mately He  is  associated  with  the  other  Divine  Persons. 

We  are  led  up  to  what  is  in  later  theological  language 

*  Atonement  and  Personality,  p.  194.  Compare  the  important 
and  detailed  exposition,  pp.  154-9,  168  f.,  180-2. 


2i6        VII.    The  Christology  of  the  Gospel 

called  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity.  It  is  well 
known  that  some  of  the  most  important  data  for  this 
doctrine  are  derived  from  the  Fourth  Gospel,  especially 
from  the  last  discourse.  And  whatever  is  found  in 
St.  John  may  be  paralleled  in  substance  from  St.  Paul. 

3.  Comparison  with  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 

Now  I  am  not  going  to  maintain  that,  if  one  of  us 
had  been  an  eye-witness  of  the  Life  of  Christ,  the 
profound  teaching  of  which  I  have  just  given  an 
outline  would  have  seemed  to  him  to  bear  the  same 
kind  of  proportion  to  the  sum  total  of  His  teaching 
that  it  bears  in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  By  the  essential 
conditions  of  the  case  it  could  not  be  so.  It  is  this 
particular  kind  of  teaching  which  the  Evangelist 
specially  wishes  to  enforce ;  and,  in  order  to  enforce 
it,  he  has  singled  out  for  his  narrative  just  those 
scenes  in  which  it  came  up — those  and,  broadly 
speaking,  no  others. 

We  have  seen  that  in  regard  to  this  teaching  there 
is  a  very  large  amount  of  coincidence  between  St.  Paul 
and  St.  John.  We  shall  have  presently  to  consider 
what  is  the  nature  and  ground  of  this  coincidence, 
how  it  arose  and  what  relation  it  implies  between  the 
two  Apostles.  But  before  going  on  to  this,  we  must 
first  ask  ourselves  how  far  it  can  be  verified  by 
comparison  with  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  It  is  right 
to  look  for  such  verification,  however  much  we  may 
be  convinced  that  these  Gospels  are  an  extremely 
partial  and  fragmentary  representation  of  all  that 
Christ   said    and    did.       Even    a   modern    biography, 


Comparison  with  the  Synoptic  Gospels     217 

contemplated  perhaps  during  the  lifetime  of  its  sub- 
ject, and  actually  begun  soon  after  his  death,  will  only 
contain  a  tithe  (if  he  is  a  really  great  man)  of  his  more 
significant  acts  and  sayings.  But  those  who  attempted 
to  write  what  we  wrongly  call  Lives  of  Christ  did  not, 
as  it  would  seem,  for  the  most  part  even  begin  to  do 
so  or  make  preparations  for  beginning  for  some  thirty 
years  after  the  Crucifixion,  when  the  company  of  the 
apostles  and  intimate  disciples  was  already  dispersed, 
or  at  least  in  no  near  contact  with  the  writers  \  We 
have  only  to  ask  ourselves  what  we  should  expect  in 
such  circumstances.  And  I  think  we  should  find  that 
our  expectations  were  fully  borne  out  if  we  were  to 
compare  together  the  contents  of  the  oldest  documents, 
those  of  the  Logia  with  the  Mark-Gospel,  and  those  of 
the  special  source  or  sources  of  St.  Luke  with  both. 
The  amount  and  value  of  the  gleanings  which  each 
attempt  left  for  those  who  came  after  tells  its  own 
story. 

But  if  we  do  not  expect  that  the  Synoptic  Gospels 
would  be  in  the  least  degree  exhaustive  in  the 
materials  they  have  preserved  for  us  from  the  Life  of 
Christ,  we  might  be  sure  that  their  defects  would  be 
greatest  in  regard  to  the  class  of  teaching  with  which 
we  are  at  present  concerned.  It  Is  teaching  of  a  kind 
that  might  perhaps  haunt  the  minds  of  a  few  gifted 

^  I  do  not  doubt  that  the  most  active  period  for  the  putting 
together  of  material  for  Gospels  was  the  decade  60-70  a.  d.  At  the 
beginning  of  this  period  St.  Mark  had  not  yet  taken  up  his  task  ; 
and  his  Gospel  forms  the  base  of  the  other  two  Synoptics.  The 
Matthaean  Logia  perhaps  by  this  time  were  collected. 


2i8        VII.    The  Christology  of  the  Gospel 

and  far-sighted  individuals,  but  would  certainly  fall 
through  the  meshes  of  the  mind  of  the  average  man. 
It  was  this  very  fact,  as  we  have  seen,  which  prompted 
the  Fourth  Evangelist  to  write  his  Gospel.  The 
externals  of  the  Lord's  Life  he  recognized  as  having 
been  adequately  told ;  but  it  was  just  the  profoundest 
teaching  and  some  of  the  most  significant  acts  that 
had  escaped  telling,  and  that  he  himself  desired  to 
rescue  from  oblivion. 

We  must  therefore  be  content  if  we  can  verify  a  few 
particulars.  We  must  not  from  the  outset  expect  to 
be  able  to  do  more.  And  we  must  be  still  more 
content  if  these  particulars  show  by  their  character 
that  they  are  fragments  from  a  much  larger  wreckage, 
that  they  are  what  we  might  call  chance  survivals  of 
what  had  once  existed  on  a  much  larger  scale. 

o 

We  concluded  our  sketch  of  the  Christology  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  by  speaking  of  the  data  which  it 
contained  for  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  These 
however  are  only  data.  It  is  perhaps  a  little  surpris- 
ing that  the  only  approach  to  a  formulation  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  occurs  not  in  St.  John  but  at 
the  end  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew  (xxviii.  19). 
I  am  of  course  well  aware  that  this  part  of  the  First 
Gospel  is  vigorously  questioned  by  the  critics.  I  am 
prepared  to  believe  myself  that  the  passage  is  a  late 
incorporation  in  the  Gospel ;  and  antecedently  I  should 
not  say  that  we  had  strong  guarantees  for  its  literal 
accuracy.  But  then — this  is  an  old  story,  so  far  as 
I  am  concerned,  and  I  must  apologize  for  introducing 
it,  but  I  cannot  leave  the  point  unnoticed — how  are 


Comparison  with  the  Synoptic  Gospels     219 

we  to  explain  that  other  remarkable  verse  that  occurs 
at  the  end  of  the  second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians 
(2  Cor.  xiii.  14)  ?  This  familiar  threefold  benedic- 
tion must  have  had  antecedents ;  it  must,  I  should 
say,  have  had  a  long  train  of  antecedents.  The  most 
adequate  explanation  of  it  seems  to  me  to  be  that  the 
train  of  antecedents  started  from  something  corre- 
sponding, something  said  at  some  time  or  other,  in  the 
teaching  of  our  Lord  \  I  fully  believe  that  the  hints 
and  intimations  of  a  Trinity  that  we  find  scattered 
about  the  New  Testament  have  their  origin  ultimately 
in  the  teaching  of  Christ.  Apart  from  this,  how  could 
the  conception  have  been  reached  at  so  early  a  date  ? 
For  2  Corinthians  must  in  any  case  fall  between 
53-57  A.D.2 

Let  us  work  our  way  backwards  through  another 
of  the  hints.  We  have  seen  that  the  coming  of 
the  Paraclete  is  described  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  as 
a    return    of    Christ    to    His    own.     Are    there    any 

^  I  cannot  regard  this  argument  as  at  all  invalidated  by  Dr.  Drum- 
mond's  three  sermons.  The  Pauline  Benediction  (London,  1897). 
At  the  same  time  I  can  quite  accept  the  view  that  the  Apostle's 
words  are  'the  seed  rather  than  the  final  expression  of  Christian 
theology.' 

^  With  the  above  may  be  compared  Dr.  Hort's  comment  (ad  loc.) 
on  I  St.  Peter  i.  i,  2,  and  other  Trinitarian  passages  referred  to  in 
illustration  :  '  In  no  passage  is  there  any  indication  that  the  writer 
was  independently  working  out  a  doctrinal  scheme :  a  recognized 
belief  or  idea  seems  to  be  everywhere  presupposed.  How  such  an 
idea  could  arise  in  the  mind  of  St.  Paul  or  any  other  apostle  without 
sanction  from  a  Word  of  the  Lord,  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  :  and  this 
consideration  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  doubts  which  have,  by  no 
means  unnaturally,  been  raised  whether  Matt,  xxviii.  19  may  not 
have  been  added  or  recast  in  a  later  generation.' 


220        VII .    The  Christology  of  the  Gospel 

parallels  for  this  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  ?  Not 
exactly,  because  the  two  things  are  not  brought 
into  combination.  But  we  have  on  the  one  hand 
distinct  predictions  of  the  activity  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
after  the  departure  of  Christ.     For  instance  : 

'  When  they  deliver  you  up,  be  not  anxious  how  or 
what  ye  shall  speak.  .  .  .  For  it  is  not  ye  that  speak, 
but  the  Spirit  of  your  Father  that  speaketh  in  you ' 
(Matt.  X.  19,  20). 

And  in  St.  Luke's  version  of  the  promise  as  to 
answers  to  prayer,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  spoken  of  as 
imparted  to  the  believer : 

'  If  ye  then,  being  evil,  know  how  to  give  good  gifts 
unto  your  children,  how  much  more  shall  your  heavenly 
Father  give  the  Holy  Spirit  to  them  that  ask  him?' 
(Luke  xi.  13). 

The  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  connexion  with  prayer 
is  one  of  the  topics  in  the  Last  Discourse  as  recorded 
by  St.  John.  On  the  other  hand  there  are  in  the 
Synoptics  remarkable  allusions  to  the  continued  pre- 
sence of  Christ  with  His  people.  Such  is  that  which 
follows  immediately  upon  the  verse  about  Baptism  in 
the  threefold  Name  :  '  Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even 
unto  the  end  of  the  world.'  And  in  Matt,  xviii.  20, 
'  Where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  my 
name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them  \'  Wendt 
connects  this  last  passage  with  the  instances  in  which 
acts  done  in  the  name  of  Christ  and  for  the  benefit  of 
His  followers  are  spoken  of  as  though  they  were  done 
to  Him.     For  instance,  'Whosoever  shall  receive  one 

'  Compare  the  Fifth  of  the  Oxyrhynchus  Logia. 


Comparison  ivith  the  Synoptic  Gospels      221 

of  such  little  children  in  my  name,  receiveth  me  :  and 
whosoever  receiveth  me,  receiveth  not  me,  but  him 
that  sent  me'  (Mark  ix.  t^j  ;  cf.  Luke  x.  16;  Matt. 
XXV.  40).  Wendt  goes  on  to  dilute  the  meaning  of 
these  allusions.  He  would  make  them  mean  no  more 
than  that  such  actions  have  the  same  value  and  the 
same  reward  as  though  they  were  done  to  Christ. 
But  the  ascending  series  is  against  this :  '  Whosoever 
receiveth  Me,  receiveth  not  Me,  but  Him  that  sent 
Me.' 

And  once  again  we  have  to  ask,  what  is  the  origin 
of  all  those  passages  in  the  Epistles,  where  St.  Paul 
speaks  of  the  solidarity  between  Christ  and  the  whole 
body  of  the  faithful,  so  that  in  that  extraordinary  phrase 
the  sufferings  of  His  Apostle  actually  fill  up  or  supple- 
ment the  sufferings  of  Christ  {avravaivXrjpa)  to,  vcmprniaTa 
Ta>v  6\iy\r^aiv  Tov  Xptarov,  Col.  i.  24)  ? 

The  existence  of  such  passages  suggests  the  proba- 
bility— and  indeed  more  than  probability — that  there 
were  others  like  them,  but  more  directly  didactic  and 
expository,  which  have  not  been  preserved.  The 
Fourth  Gospel  contains  some  specimens  of  this  teach- 
ing ;  but  that  Gospel  and  the  Synoptics  together 
rather  give  specimens  of  a  class  of  teaching  than  make 
any  approach  to  an  exhaustive  record  of  all  that  our 
Lord  must  have  said  on  these  topics. 

We  have  seen  that  the  Synoptic  Gospels  distinctly 
represent  our  Lord  as  the  Jewish  Messiah.  They 
represent  Him  as  filled  from  the  first  with  the  con- 
sciousness of  a  mission  that  is  beyond  that  of  the 
ordinary  teacher  or  prophet.    He  taught  as  one  having 


222        VII.    The  Christology  of  the  Gospel 

authority,  and  not  as  the  scribes.  The  demoniacs 
recognized  in  Him  a  presence  before  which  they  were 
awed  and  calmed.  He  took  upon  Himself  to  forgive 
sins,  with  the  assurance  that  those  whom  He  forgave 
God  also  would  forgive.  He  called  Himself,  in  one 
very  ancient  form  of  narrative,  *  Lord  of  the  sabbath.' 
He  did  not  hesitate  to  review  the  whole  course  of 
previous  revelation,  and  to  propound  in  His  own  name 
a  new  law  superseding  the  old.  He  evidently  regarded 
His  work  on  earth  as  possessing  an  extraordinary 
value.  He  was  Himself  a  greater  than  Solomon, 
a  greater  than  Jonah  ;  and,  what  is  perhaps  more 
remarkable.  He  seems  to  regard  His  own  claim  as 
exceeding  that  of  the  whole  body  of  the  poor  ('  Ye 
have  the  poor  always  with  you  .  .  .  but  Me  ye  have 
not  always  ').  As  His  teaching  went  on.  He  began  to 
speak  as  though  His  relation  to  the  human  race  was 
not  confined  to  His  life  among  them,  but  as  though  it 
would  be  continued  and  renewed  on  a  vast  scale  after 
His  death  ;  He  would  come  again  in  the  character  of 
Judge,  and  He  would  divide  mankind  according  to  the 
service  which  (in  a  large  sense)  they  had  rendered,  or 
not  rendered,  to  Him. 

,  These  are  a  number  of  particulars  which  helped  to 
bring  out  what  there  was  extraordinary  in  His  mission. 
By  what  formula  was  it  to  be  described  and  covered  ? 
It  was  described  under  the  Jewish  name  '  Messiah,' 
with  its  various  equivalents.  Among  those  equivalents, 
that  which  the  apostolic  generation  deemed  most 
adequate  was  *  the  Son  of  God.'  One  of  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  says  expressly  that  He  applied  this  title  to 


Comparison  with  the  Synoptic  Gospels      223 

Himself  (Matt,  xxvii.  43),  and  it  is  quite  possible  that 

He  did  so,  but  critical  grounds  prevent  us  from  laying 

stress  upon  the  phrase.     On  two  great  occasions  (the 

Baptism   and  Transfiguration)  the    title    is   given    to 

Him  by  a  voice  from  heaven.     But  only  in  a  single 

passage  (Matt.  xi.  27;  Luke  x.  22)  is  there  anything 

like   an   exposition  of  what  is  contained  in  the  title. 

The  mutual  relation  of  the   Father  and  the   Son  is 

expressed  as  a  perfect  insight  on  the  part  of  each,  not 

only  into  the    mind,   but    into    the  whole  being  and 

character  of  the  other. 

Different    critics    have    dealt   with    this    saying    in 

different  ways.     Harnack,  in  his  famous  lectures,  gave 

it  the  prominence  that  it  deserves,  but  at  the  same 

time    reduced    its    meaning,   in  accordance    with    his 

generally    reduced    conception    of    Christianity.     His 

exegesis  tended  to  limit  the  peculiar  knowledge  of  the 

Son  to  His  special  apprehension  of  the  truth  of  Divine 

Fatherhood.     M.  Loisy  demurs  to  this.     He  says  : 

*  There  is  clearly  involved  a  transcendental  relation, 
which  throws  into  relief  the  high  dignity  of  the  Christ, 
and  not  a  psychological  reality,  of  which  one  cannot 
see  the  possibility  in  respect  to  God.  The  terms 
Father  and  Son  are  not  here  purely  religious,  but  they 
have  already  become  metaphysical  ;  theological  and 
dogmatic  speculation  has  been  able  to  take  hold  of 
them  without  greatly  modifying  their  sense.  There  is 
only  one  Father  and  only  one  Son,  constituted,  in 
a  manner,  by  the  knowledge  that  they  have  of  one 
another,  absolute  entities  the  relations  of  which  are 
almost  absolute  ^' 

Perhaps  this  is  a  little  exaggerated  in  the  opposite 

^  LEvangile  ei  rEglise,  p.  78  f. 


224        VII.    The  Christology  of  the  Gospel 

direction  to  Harnack.  Still  I  believe  it  to  be  in  the 
main  right.  The  mutual  knowledge  of  the  Father  and 
the  Son  rests  upon  their  essential  community  of  nature. 
But,  having  recognized  this,  M.  Loisy  goes  on,  with 
what  I  cannot  but  think  singular  levity,  to  cast  doubt 
upon  the  passage.  He  regards  the  whole  context  in 
St.  Matthew  as  a  sort  of  psalm  based  upon  the  last 
chapter  (li)  of  Ecclesiasticus  ;  and  he  ascribes  it  not  to 
our  Lord,  but  to  the  tradition  of  the  early  Church. 

This  is  far  from  being  a  favourable  specimen  of 
Biblical  criticism.  We  have  only  to  set  the  two 
passages  side  by  side  to  estimate  its  value.  It  is 
possible  enough  that  there  are  reminiscences  not  only 
of  this,  but  of  other  passages  of  Ecclesiasticus  and  of 
other  books  in  the  mind  of  speaker  or  writer  \  We 
might  conceive  of  a  defining  phrase  here  or  there 
being  due  to  the  Evangelist  and  suggested  by  such 
reminiscences.  Or  we  might  conceive  of  Christ 
Himself  going  back  in  thought  (as  well  He  might) 
to  the  invitation  of  personified  Wisdom.  There 
would  be  nothing  strange  in  either  supposition.  The 
New  Testament  everywhere  takes  up  the  threads  of 
the  Old,  and  is  not  confined  to  the  Jewish  Canon. 
But  in  any  case  the  materials  thus  supplied  are 
entirely  recast ;  and  the  whole  passage  ('  Come  unto 
Me,'  &c.)  bears  the  inimitable  stamp  of  one  Figure, 
and  only  one  ^. 

^  H.  J.  Holtzmann,  for  instance,  points  to  Is.  xiv.  3  ;  xxviii.  12  ; 
Iv.  1-3;  Jer.  vi.  16;  xxxi.  2,  25,  but  especially  Ecclus.  iii.  6;  vi.  24, 
25,  28,  29;  li.  23-30. 

*  Contrast  the  treatment  of  the  passage  by  M.  Loisy  with  the  way 


Comparison  with  the  Synoptic  Gospels      225 

The  truth  is  that  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  as  well 
as  in  the  Fourth,  there  is  really  a  mysterious  back- 
ground, though  we  see  less  of  the  attempt  to  pierce  it. 
These  simple-looking  sayings  are  not  so  simple  as 
they  seem.  To  take,  for  instance,  one  upon  which  we 
have  touched,  '  he  that  receiveth  you,  receiveth  Me, 
and  he  that  receiveth  Me,  receiveth  Him  that  sent 
Me.'  The  words  are  almost  childlike  in  their  sim- 
plicity, and  yet  they  lead  up  to  the  highest  heights, 
and  down  to  the  deepest  depths.  No  doubt  we  may 
rationalize  it  all  away,  if  we  please.  We  may  shut  out 
the  mystery  from  our  minds.  But  we  shall  not  keep 
it  out  for  long. 

Just  when  we  are  safest,  there's  a  sunset-touch, 
A  fancy  from  a  flower-bell,  some  one's  death, 
A  chorus-ending  from  Euripides — 
And  that's  enough  for  fifty  hopes  and  fears 
As  old  and  new  at  once  as  nature's  self, 
To  rap  and  knock  and  enter  in  our  soul. 

There  is  a  movement  perhaps  on  a  large  scale,  like 
the  Bentham  period  in  England  in  the  first  half  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  or  the  sceptical  and  deistical  period 
a  hundred  years  earlier,  and  it  seems  as  though  every- 
thing were  to  be  made  clear  and  intelligible,  and  the 
conscience  and  soul  of  men  were  not  to  be  troubled 
by  phantoms  any  more.     And  then  there  come  '  Lake 

in  which  it  is  singled  out  by  Matthew  Arnold  {Literature  and  Dogma, 
p.  214  f.).  Indeed  the  course  of  the  most  recent  criticism  has  borne 
in  upon  me  more  and  more  that,  far  from  being  a  stumbling-block, 
it  is  really  the  key  to  any  true  understanding  of  the  Christ  of  the 
Gospels.  If  we  had  not  had  the  passage,  we  should  have  had  to 
invent  one  like  it ! 

CB.   F.  G.  Q 


226        VIL    The  Christology  of  the  Gospel 

Poets/  or  an  '  Oxford  Movement/  and  the  other  world, 
the  old  world,  all  comes  back  again  ;  and  the  forces 
that  try  to  restrain  it  are  snapped  like  Samson's 
withes. 

The  reason  appears  to  be  that  these  very  clear  out- 
lines  are  always  obtained  by  omissions  or  suppressions 
that^are  artificial,  and  do  not  do  justice  to  the  wonder- 
ful richness  and  subtlety  either  of  the  human  mind  or 
of.the_powers  that  work  upon  it. 

4.  Interpretation  of  these  Relations  between  the 

Synoptic  Gospels,  St.  Paul  and  St.  John : 

Alternative  Constructions. 

These  comparisons  that  we  have  just  been  insti- 
tuting between  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  St.  Paul,  and  St. 
John  raise  a  very  large  question,  a  question  involving 
nothing  less  than  our  whole  construction  of  the  history 
of  the  Apostolic  Age. 

It  is  becoming  more  and  more  the  custom  with  the 

5W^^  ^  *      left  wing  of  critical  writers  to  make  the  most  funda- 

ccAiu^  c^tKi^JL-  j^grit-^l  part  of  Christianity,  the  pivot  teaching  of  the 

j^^  t^  M.^*-  j^^^  Testament,  an  invention  of  St.  Paul's.     St.  John 

leuJ^  Jl^i^J  is  only  the  chief  of  his  disciples.     According  to  these 

Jc^'^^(^^'  /^''''    writers  primitive  Christianity,  the  genuine  Christianity, 

^    -''"  loses  itself  in  the  sands,  or  is  represented,  let  us  say, 

deducting  the  stress  on  the  Mosaic  Law,  by  the  sect 

of  the  Ebionites.     It  is  St.  Paul  who  strikes  out  the 

jTAsAt^i^^  //'<''' -new   road;  and   the  writer   whom  we  call  St.   John 

Ar^  '  >^'^*P^  follows  him  in  it.     The  attempt  of  this  later  writer  to 

supply  a  historical  basis  for  Paulinism,  holds  good  only 


Interpretation  of  these  Relations  227 

in  appearance.  The  teaching  which  it  puts  into  the 
mouth  of  Jesus  is  in  no  sense  an  antecedent  of  the 
teaching  of  St.  Paul,  but  a  product  of  it. 

Here,  for  instance,  is  a  trenchant  statement  of  the 
position. 

'  The  Fourth  Gospel  derived  this  importance,  lasting 
long  beyond  the  time  of  its  birth,  from  its  having 
bridged  over  the  chasm  between  Jesus  and  St.  Paul, 
and  from  its  having  carried  the  Pauline  Gospel  back 
into  the  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus.  It  is  only  through 
this  gospel  that  Paulinism  attains  to  absolute  dominion 
in  the  theology  of  the  Church.  .  .  .  Jesus  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God,  the  Redeemer  of  the  world,  is  for  John 
as  well  as  Paul  the  core  and  centre  of  Christianity. 
And,  moreover,  John's  Christology  is  Pauline  in  all 
its  important  features — the  Son  of  God  who  was  with 
God  in  heaven,  and  was  sent  by  God  upon  earth,  the 
Mediator  of  creation,  the  God  of  Revelation  of  the 
Old  Testament,  the  Son  of  Man  from  heaven,  as  Paul, 
too,  called  Him.  And  the  chief  object  of  His  coming 
into  the  world  is  the  atonement  by  means  of  His 
death.  .  .  .  The  whole  of  the  Johannine  theology  is 
a  natural  development  from  the  Pauline.  It  is 
Paulinism  modified  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  sub- 
apostolic  age.  Two  important  consequences  follow 
from  this.  There  is  no  Johannine  theology  by  the 
side  of  and  independent  of  the  Pauline.  Luther 
already  felt  this  clearly,  and  he  understood  something 
of  the  matter.  John  and  Paul  are  not  two  theological 
factors,  but  one.  Were  we  to  accept  that  St.  John 
formed  his  conception  of  Christianity  either  originally 
or  directly  from  Jesus'  teaching,  we  should  have  to 
refuse  St.  Paul  all  originality,  for  we  should  leave  him 
scarcely  a  single  independent  thought.  But  it  is  St. 
Paul  that  is  original  ;  St.  John  is  not.  In  St.  Paul's 
letters  we  look,  as  through  a  window,  into  the  factory 
where    these    great    thoughts    flash    forth    and    are 

Q2 


228        VII .    The  Christology  of  the  Gospel 

developed ;  in  St.  John  we  see  the  beginning  of 
their  transformation  and  decay.' — Wernle,  Begimiings 
of  Christianity,  ii.  pp.  262,  264,  274  f.  (E.  T.). 

Nothing  could  be  clearer.  And  by  reason  of  his 
clearness  and  boldness  of  statement  Wernle  is  an 
excellent  representative  of  the  whole  school ;  for  what 
he  asserts  in  set  terms  is  really  presupposed  by 
a  number  of  other  writers  who  do  not  assert  it.  It 
remains  for  us  to  ask,  Is  this  construction  of  the  early 
history  of  Christianity  tenable  ? 

Two  Preliminary  Remarks. 

Before  I  attempt  to  answer  this  question,  there  are 
two  remarks  that  I  should  like  to  make  upon  it. 

i.  We  observe  here,  as  in  so  many  other  cases,  that 
the  theory  reflects,  not  so  much  the  essential  disposi- 
tion and  proportions  of  the  facts  as  the  state  of  the 
extant  evidence.  Hardly  anything  has  come  down  to 
us  from  the  early  years,  at  least  for  the  first  three 
decades,  of  the  Mother  Church ;  and  from  that  which 
has  come  down  to  us,  the  earlier  chapters  of  the  Acts 
and  the  Epistle  of  St.  James,  criticism  would  make 
considerable  deductions.  I  think  that  these  deductions 
are  greater  than  ought  to  be  made,  but  their  existence 
cannot  be  ignored.  What  we  know  of  the  Mother 
Church  has  to  be  pieced  together  by  inference  and 
constructive  imagination.  On  the  other  hand  for 
St.  Paul  we  have  in  any  case  an  impressive  body  of 
certainly  genuine  epistles.  It  is  natural  enough  that 
the  mind  should  be  dominated  by  these,  and  that  the 
assumption  should  be  made — for  it  is  pure  assumption 


Interpretation  of  these  Relations  229 

— that  the  leading  ideas  of  these  epistles  are  an  original 
creation. 

ii.  But  there  is  nothing  really  in  the  Epistles  them- 
selves to  bear  out  this  assumption.  St.  Paul  does  not 
write  as  though  he  were  a  wholesale  innovator.  He 
does  not  write  as  though  he  were  founding  a  new 
religion.  On  the  contrary,  he  lays  great  stress  in 
a  familiar  passage  (i  Cor.  iii.  11)  on  the  fact  that  the 
foundation  is  already  laid.  In  another  place  (i  Cor. 
XV.  11)  he  speaks  as  though  it  made  no  difference 
whether  he  were  the  preacher  or  others,  the  belief 
of  Christians  was  the  same.  St.  Paul  has  indeed 
his  special  views  and  his  special  controversies,  but 
they  do  not  affect  the  main  point.  He  assumes 
that  this  is  common  to  all  Christians. 

This  brings  me  to  some  of  the  points  on  which  we 
have  to  test  the  theory,  as  it  is  stated  by  Wernle. 

5.  Objectio7is  to  the  Critical  Theory. 

Let  us  think  for  a  moment  what  the  theory  involves. 
It  involves  that  the  Pauline  Gospel  not  only  con- 
quered the  West,  but  that  it  came  flooding  back  in 
a  great  reflux-wave  all  over  the  East.  The  East, 
on  this  theory,  has  no  power  of  resistance ;  it  sur- 
renders at  discretion.  How  does  this  accord  with  the 
evidence  ? 

i.  In  order  that  there  should  be  this  conquest  and 
annexation  of  the  whole  Church  by  the  Pauline 
Gospel  it  is  implied,  and  it  is  of  the  essence  of  the 
theory  to  imply,  that  there  was  a  broad  and  well- 
marked  difference  between  this  Pauline  Gospel   and 


230        VII.   The  Christ ology  of  the  Gospel 

the  general  belief  of  the  Church,  more  particularly  of 
the  Mother  Church.  But  St.  Paul  himself  expressly 
disclaims  any  such  difference  ;  he  was  anxious  that  there 
should  not  be  any,  and  he  took  steps  to  guard  against 
the  possibility  that  serious  divergence  might  have 
come  between  them  unawares.  He  tells  us  that  he 
compared  notes  with  the  leading  apostles  at  Jerusalem, 
to  make  sure  that  he  and  they  were  preaching  sub- 
stantially the  same  thing :  *  I  laid  before  them  the 
gospel  which  I  preach  among  the  Gentiles,  but  privately 
before  them  who  were  of  repute,  lest  by  any  means 
I  should  be  running,  or  had  run,  in  vain '  (Gal.  ii.  2). 
And  again,  at  the  end  of  the  conferences,  he  tells  us 
how  James  and  Peter  and  John  gave  to  him  and 
Barnabas  the  right  hands  of  fellowship,  as  a  pledge  of 
their  substantial  agreement  (ibid.  ver.  9). 

It  is  true  that  there  were  points  of  discussion,  which 
in  other  sections  of  the  Church  amounted  to  con- 
troversy, between  St.  Paul  and  the  Judaean  Christians. 
But  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  allows  us  to  see  the 
full  extent  of  these  debatable  matters  ;  and,  by  de- 
fining them,  it  also  defines  the  extent  of  the  common 
ground  of  agreement.  What  we  should  call  the  doctrine 
of  the  Person  of  Christ  certainly  comes  under  the  latter 
head,  and  not  under  the  former.  The  Mother  Church 
was  not  Ebionite,  or  St.  Paul  would  have  been  in  still 
sharper  antagonism  to  it  than  he  was. 

ii.  It  was  this  substantial  agreement  between  St. 
Paul  and  the  leading  Apostles  that  saved  the  Church 
from  a  formidable  rupture.  Such  glimpses  as  we  have 
of  the  Judaean  churches  do  not  at  all  give  us  the 


Objections  to  the  Critical  Theory  231 

impression  that  they  would  have  submitted  meekly 
to  Pauline  dictation.  No  doubt  there  was  a  consider- 
able prejudice  against  St.  Paul  personally ;  but  it  was 
a  prejudice  that  turned  upon  other  things  altogether 
than  his  teaching  about  Christ.  We  have  in  Acts 
xxi.  20-5  a  graphic  description,  which  is  also  full  of 
verisimilitude,  of  the  kind  of  ways  in  which  St.  Paul 
came  into  collision  with  the  Jewish  Christians  ;  but  his 
teaching  about  Christ  was  not  one  of  them. 

iii.  We  have  seen  that  the  confession  that  Jesus 
is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  was  common  ground 
for  all  Christians.  It  was  on  this  ground  that  St.  Paul 
and  the  Judaean  churches  felt  themselves  one.  They 
also  felt  themselves  one  in  what  we  ought  not  to  call 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  but  in  those  root-facts  out 
of  which  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  afterwards  came 
to  be  formulated.  There  was  doubtless  still  room  for 
variety  of  speculation.  There  was  room  for  different 
interpretation  of  current  terms  and  current  beliefs. 
The  doctrine  of  the  Church  had  as  yet  a  certain 
fluidity.  St.  Paul  might  take  one  line,  and  Cephas 
another,  and  Apollos  a  third.  And  yet  Christ  was 
not  divided.  There  was  a  consciousness  of  union 
underlying  these  differences.  There  was  a  sense,  that 
could  not  as  yet  be  put  adequately  into  words,  of 
certain  great  facts,  of  certain  fundamental  beliefs,  by 
virtue  of  which  the  Church  was  one. 

iv.  It  is  out  of  this  common  ground,  and  not  out 
of  the  special  features  of  the  Pauline  theology,  that 
the  teaching  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  really  sprang. 
True,   there   are  resemblances  and  affinities  between 


232        VII.    The  Christology  of  the  Gospel 

details  in  the  theologies  of  the  Evangelist  and  the 
Apostle.  But  it  does  not  follow  that  these  were 
borrowed  by  the  one  from  the  others  If  they  had 
been,  we  may  be  sure  that  there  would  have  been 
clearer  evidence  of  the  fact.  Somewhere  in  the  group 
of  Johannean  writings  there  would  have  been  a  side- 
glance  at  St.  Paul  that  we  should  have  understood. 
As  it  is,  the  two  great  Apostolic  cycles  stand  majestic- 
ally apart.  There  may  be  a  connexion  between  them, 
but  it  is  a  connexion  in  the  main  underground.  There 
is  no  direct  affiliation,  but  the  parentage  of  both  lies 
behind.  Many  a  seed  sprouted  in  the  early  years  of 
the  Pentecostal  Church  :  but  it  was  not  this  apostle 
or  that  who  made  them  grow  ;  the  seeds  were  sown 
before  Pentecost,  and  they  had  their  watering  and 
their  growth  and  their  increase  from  the  same  Hand. 

It  is  true  that  we  cannot  give  chapter  and  verse 
for  all  this.  The  books  from  which  chapter  and 
verse  might  have  been  taken  were  never  written. 
Even  in  our  own  much-lettered  age,  how  many  a 
pregnant  thought  is  there  that  is  not  caught  and 
fixed  in  writing!  And  what  sort  of  record  should 
we  have  of  the  thought,  say,  of  America  or  England 
for  some  fifteen  years,  if  the  chronicle  of  it  were  com- 
pressed into  a  single  document  of  the  length  of  the 
first  twelve  chapters  of  the  Acts  ? 

The  best  record  of  the  thoughts  that  grew  and 
fructified   in   those  momentous   early  years  is  to   be 

'  I  do  not  of  course  mean  to  deny  all  influence  of  St.  Paul  upon 
St.  John  in  the  shaping  or  formulating  of  Christian  ideas.  But  the 
ultimate  origin  of  those  ideas  goes  further  back  than  to  St.  Paul. 


Objections  to  the  Critical  Theory  233 

found  not  in  the  Acts  but  in  the  Gospels  ;  and  the 
fact  that  it  is  to  be  sought  there  shows  whence  the 
impulse  really  came.  It  may  seem  a  truism  to 
maintain  that  Jesus  Christ  was  the  real  Founder  of 
Christianity,  and  that  He  founded  it  by  what  He  was, 
and  not  by  what  men  imagined  Him  to  be.  Of  course 
to  many  Christians  it  will  seem  a  truism  to  say  this  ; 
the  simple  Christian  never  thought  otherwise ;  but 
there  are  Christians  who  are  not  simple,  and  who 
may  be  encouraged  to  search  with  a  closer  scrutiny 
to  see  if  the  old  account  of  the  origin  of  Christianity 
is  not  the  best,  indeed  the  only  account  possible. 
The  New  Testament  is  scattered  with  hints,  which 
are  not  more  than  hints,  arrow-heads  as  it  were 
pointing  back  to  Christ.  These  are  a  profitable 
.subject  of  study — none  more  profitable.  If  we  pay 
attention  to  these  hints,  and  if  we  look  for  the  roots 
of  St.  Paul's  teaching,  I  do  not  think  we  shall  say  that 
Christianity — the  Christianity  of  nineteen  centuries — 
was  his  invention,  and  that  St.  John  did  but  follow 
in  his  train. 

6.  Larger  Objections. 

The  kind  of  study  that  I  have  just  been  recom- 
mending is  strictly  critical ;  but  the  theory  of  which 
I  have  been  speaking  carries  us  out  beyond  the 
narrower  ground  of  criticism  into  the  wider  field  of 
history  and  teleology.  I  may  just  for  a  moment  in 
conclusion  touch  on  this.  It  may  supply  us  with  a 
warning  that  there  is  at  least  a  strong  presumption 
that  the  theory  which  fathers  the  teaching  of  St.  John 


234        ^^^'    The  Christology  of  the  Gospel 

upon  that  of  St.  Paul,  and  St.  Paul's  teaching  upon 
itself,  with  no  higher  sanction  behind,  cannot  well 
be  true.  Such  a  theory  would  mean  that  quite  a 
half,  and  the  most  important  half,  of  the  fundamental 
theses  of  historical  Christianity,  were  a  mere  human 
invention  which  those  who  have  had  the  wit  to  dis- 
cover them  to  be  a  human  invention  may  go  on  to 
treat  as  nothing  better, — to  bestow  on  them  perhaps 
a  certain  amount  of  praise  in  relation  to  their  time, 
but  to  regard  them  as  something  that  the  world  has 
outgrown.  This  is  a  view  that  in  the  present  day, 
avowedly  or  unavowedly,  is  very  largely  taken.  On 
this  view  there  is  a  real  nucleus  of  truth  in  biblical 
Christianity,  -but  that  nucleus  in  the  light  of  modern 
science  is  seen  to  be  very  small  indeed  ;  all  the  rest 
is  surplusage.  The  misfortune  for  the  theory  is  that 
it  is  not  only  on  the  nucleus  of  truth,  but  very 
largely  upon  the  surplusage,  that  nineteen  centuries 
of  Christians  have  lived. 

Now  I  am  quite  prepared  to  believe  that  most 
great  truths  that  do  not  come  under  the  head  of 
Mathematics  or  Physical  Science  have  had  a  certain 
amount  of  surplusage  attached  to  them ;  there  has 
been  husk  and  kernel,  flower  and  sheath.  I  quite 
believe  that  men  do 

'rise  on  stepping-stones 
Of  their  dead  selves  to  higher  things.' 

But    I    cannot   help  thinking  that,   on  the  theory  of 

Wernle  and  his  friends,  the  surplusage  is  too  great, 

the  dead  self  too  large.     The  course  of  history,   as 

this  theory  would  describe  it,  seems  to  me  contrary 


Objections  to  the  Critical  Theory  235 

to  the  analogy  of  what  we  otherwise  know  of  the 
deaHngs  of  God  with  man.  If  we  look,  for  instance, 
at  the  Old  Testament,  we  see  a  gradual  preparation 
for  the  coming  of  Christ,  a  gradual  elevation  and 
expansion  of  religious  ideas,  on  the  whole  a  nearer 
approximation  to  truth.  All  of  us,  critics  and  non- 
critics,  would  give  substantially  the  same  account 
of  this ;  we  should  all  of  us  at  least  see  in  it  progress. 
But  when  we  come  to  Christianity,  Wernle  and  his 
friends  see  in  it  a  far  larger  proportion  of  what  is 
not  progress  but  depravation  and  corruption,  not  the 
gradual  expansion  and  purification  of  true  ideas,  but 
the  wider  dissemination  of  ideas  that  are  false.  There 
are  nearly  fourteen  centuries  of  the  dissemination  of 
these  false  ideas ;  then  comes  a  sudden  spasmodic 
effort  of  partial  relief ;  and  at  last,  in  the  latter  half 
of  the  nineteenth  and  in  the  twentieth  centuries,  there 
is  some  sort  of  approach  to  a  rediscovery  of  truth.  It 
seems  to  me  difficult  to  describe  this  view  of  history 
as  anything  else  than  a  systematic  impeachment  of 
Divine  Providence. 

I  do  not  wish  to  press  the  point.  As  I  have  said, 
we  have  left  behind  the  region  of  criticism,  and 
entered  upon  another  that  is  not  only  very  wide  but 
that  some  of  you  may  think  rather  outside  my  subject. 
The  Christian,  it  seems  to  me,  ought  to  have  a  com- 
prehensive view  of  the  purpose  of  God  in  history ; 
he  ought  to  be  able  to  adjust  this  to  his  fundamental 
beliefs.  And  I  would  only  ask  you  to  consider  how 
far  this  can  be  done  on  the  theory  I  have  been 
discussing. 


LECTURE  VIII 

THE    EARLY    HISTORY    OF    THE    GOSPEL 

I.    Summary  of  the  Internal  Evidence, 

All  our  discussions  have  for  their  object,  not  the 
production  of  rounded  and  symmetrical  theories  but 
the  ascertainment  of  truth.  We  must  take  the  data 
as  we  find  them.  If  they  do  not  as  they  stand  sustain 
a  clear  conclusion,  we  cannot  make  them  do  so.  And 
it  seems  to  me  far  better  frankly  to  confess  the  fact 
than  to  strain  the  evidence  one  way  or  the  other. 
We  may  state  the  case  with  such  indications  of 
leaning  as  we  please,  but  always  with  the  reservation 
that  a  slight  change  in  the  evidence,  the  discovery 
or  recovery  of  a  single  new  fact,  might  turn  the  scale. 

This  is,  I  think,  the  position  of  things  in  regard  to 
some  of  the  outlying  parts  of  the  problem  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel.  One  broad  conclusion  seerns  to 
stand  out  from  the  evidence,  internal  as  well  as 
external.  The  author  was  an  eye-witness,  an  Apostolic 
man — either  in  the  wider  sense  of  the  word  '  Apostle ' 
or  in  the  narrower.  So  much  seems  to  me  to  be 
assured  ;  but  round  that  broad  conclusion  there  arises 
a  cluster  of  questions  to  which  I  cannot  give  a  simple 
and  categorical  answer. 


Summary  of  the  Internal  Evidence        237 

I  will  come  back  to  these  questions  in  a  moment. 
But  I  ought  perhaps  first  to  remind  you  of  the  point 
to  which  the  previous  argument  has  brought  us,  and 
of  the  grounds  on  which  the  main  proposition  is  based. 

I  take  it  to  be  a  fundamental  element  in  the 
question  that  in  several  places  (especially  xix.  35,  xxi. 
24  ;  cf.  i.  14,  I  John  i.  1-3),  the  Gospel  itself  lays  claim 
to  first-hand  authority.  This  is  a  different  matter 
from  ordinary  pseudonymous  writing.  The  direct 
and  strong  assertions  that  the  Gospel  makes  are 
either  true  or  they  are  deliberate  untruths.  Between 
these  alternatives  I  have  no  hesitation  in  choosing. 
I  do  not  think  that  we  should  have  the  right  to 
make  so  grave  an  imputation  as  that  implied  in 
the  second  on  anything  but  the  clearest  necessity. 
But  the  first  alternative  appeared  to  me  to  be  con- 
firmed by  a  multitude  of  particulars  :  first,  by  a 
number  of  places  in  which  the  author  of  the  Gospel 
seems  to  write  from  a  standpoint  within  the  Apos- 
tolic circle,  or  in  which  he  gives  expression  to 
experiences  like  those  of  an  Apostle  ;  and  secondly 
by  the  very  marked  extent  to  which  the  narrative 
of  the  Gospel  corresponds  in  its  details  to  the  real 
conditions  of  the  time  and  place  in  which  its  scene 
is  laid,  conditions  which  rapidly  changed  and  passed 
away. 

This  constitutes  the  internal  argument  for  the 
authentic  character  of  the  Gospel.  It  is  met  and, 
as  I  conceive,  strongly  corroborated  by  the  nature 
of  the  external  evidence. 


238     VIII.    The  Early  History  of  the  Gospel 


II.    The  External  Evidence. 

I.    The  Position  at  the  end  of  the  Second  Century. 

In  regard  to  this  I  would  not  spend  time  in  refine-" 
ments  upon  some  of  the  scanty  details  furnished  by 
the  scanty  literature  of  the  first  half  of  the  second 
century.  I  would  rather  take  my  stand  on  the  stat^ 
of  things  revealed  to  us  on  the  lifting  of  the  curtain 
for  that  scene  of  the  Church's  history  which  extends 
roughly  from  about  the  year  170  to  200.  I  would 
invite  attention  to  the  distribution  of  the  evidence  in 
this  period  :  Irenaeus  and  the  Letter  of  the  Churches 
of  Vienne  and  Lyons  in  Gaul,  Heracleon  in  Italy, 
Tertullian  at  Carthage,  Polycrates  at  Ephesus,  Theo- 
philus  at  Antioch,  Tatian  at  Rome  and  in  Syria, 
Clement  at  Alexandria.  The  strategical  positions  are 
occupied,  one  might  say,  all  over  the  Empire.  In 
the  great  majority  of  cases  there  is  not  a  hint  of 
dissent.  On  the  contrary  the  fourfold  Gospel  is 
regarded  for  the  most  part  as  one  and  indivisible. 
Just  in  one  small  coterie  at  Rome  objections  are 
raised  to  the  Fourth  Gospel,  not  on  the  ground  of 
any  special  and  verifiable  tradition,  but  from  dislike 
of  some  who  appeal  to  the  Gospel  and  from  internal 
criticism  of  which  we  can  take  the  measure.  Just  at 
this  period  of  which  I  am  speaking  these  dissentients 
appear  and  disappear,  leaving  so  little  trace  that  (as 
we  have  seen)  Eusebius,  who  is  really  a  careful  and 
candid   person,    and    has   ancients   like    Origen    and 


The  External  Evidence  239 

Clement  behind  him,  can  describe  the  Gospel  as 
unquestioned  both  by  his  own  generation  and  by 
preceding  generations  (p.  65  supra). 

Let  us  for  the  moment  treat  these  great  outstanding 
testimonies  as  we  should  treat  the  reading  of  a  group 
of  MSS.  The  common  archetype  of  authorities  so 
wide  apart  and  so  independent  of  each  other  must 
go  back  very  far  indeed.  If  we  were  to  construct 
a  stemma,  and  draw  lines  from  each  of  the  authorities 
to  a  point  x,  representing  the  archetype,  the  lines 
would  be  long  and  their  meeting-point  would  be  near 
the  date  at  which  according  to  the  tradition  the  Gospel 
must  have  been  composed.  A  tradition  of  this  kind, 
so  wide-spread  and  so  deep-rooted,  could  not  have 
arisen  if  it  had  not  had  a  very  substantial  ground. 
Suppose  we  allow  for  a  moment  that  it  is  something 
in  itself  a  little  short  of  absolutely  decisive,  there 
comes  in  to  reinforce  it  what  we  have  just  been 
speaking  of  as  the  result  of  internal  criticism,  that 
the  Gospel  is  the  work  of  an  eye-witness,  a  member 
of  the  circle  which  immediately  surrounded  our  Lord. 
That  is  also  a  position  which  seems  to  me  very 
strong. 

I  submit  that  this  is  a  much  fairer  statement  of  the 
case  than  that  (e.  g.)  which  we  find  in  Schmiedel  {Em. 
Bib  I.  ii.  2550) : 

*  Instead  of  the  constantly  repeated  formula  that  an 
ancient  writing  is  "  attested "  as  early  as  by  (let  us 
say)  Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  or  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
there  will  have  to  be  substituted  the  much  more 
modest  statement  that  its  existence  (not  genuineness) 


240     VIII.    The  Early  History  of  the  Gospel 

is  attested  only  as  late  as  by  the  writers  named,  and 
even  this  only  if  the  quotations  are  undeniable  or  the 
title  expressly  mentioned.' 

This  is  a  characteristic  example  of  the  spirit  in 
which  the  author  writes  —  much  more  that  of  the 
lawyer  speaking  to  his  brief  for  the  prosecution  than 
of  the  scholar  or  historian.  The  criticism  is  couched 
in  general  terms  :  as  far  as  it  applies  in  particular  to 
the  Gospel  of  St.  John  the  caveat  is  superfluous, 
because  all  the  three  writers  named,  Irenaeus,  Ter- 
tullian,  and  Clement  of  Alexandria,  bear  witness 
expressly  to  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel,  and  not 
only  to  its  existence.  The  witness  of  Heracleon  is 
still  more  important.  To  recognize  a  writing  is  one 
thing  ;  to  recognize  it  as  sacred  is  another ;  to  com- 
ment upon  it  as  so  sacred  and  authoritative  that  its 
contents  can  be  interpreted  allegorically  is  a  third : 
and  all  this  is  so  early  as  c.  1 70.  But  apart  from  this 
the  whole  form  of  the  statement  is  unjust.  It  leaves 
entirely  out  of  account  the  extreme  scantiness  of  the 
material  from  which  evidence  could  be  drawn  in  the 
period  before  the  year  180.  To  me  the  wonder  is 
that  the  evidence  borne  to  the  New  Testament 
writings  in  the  extant  literature  prior  to  this  date 
should  be  as  much  as  it  is  and  not  as  little. 


2.   Earlier  Evidence. 

But  Dr.  Schmiedel  certainly  understates  that  for 
the  Fourth  Gospel.  He  assumes  that  no  trace 
can   be   found   of  this   earlier  than    140.      A    single 


The  External  Evidence  241 

item  of  the  evidence,  which  he  does  not  notice,  is 
enough  to  refute  this.  I  refer  to  our  present  con- 
dusion  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  Mark.  We  may  say 
with  confidence  that  its  date  is  earHer  than  the  year 
140  —  whether  we  argue  from  the  chronology  of 
Aristion,  its  presumable  author,  or  from  its  presence 
in  the  archetype  of  almost  all  extant  MSS.,  or  from 
the  traces  of  it  in  writers  so  early  as  Justin  and 
Irenaeus.  But  I  may  take  it  for  granted  that  the 
added  verses  imply  not  only  the  existence  but  up  to 
a  certain  point  the  authority  of  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

But,  besides  this,  Dr.  Schmiedel  assumes  the  nega- 
tive   results  of   an  inquiry,  which  he  has   conducted 
very  lightly,  and  the  scale  on  which  he  was  writing 
compelled  him   to   conduct  lightly,  into   the  bearings 
of  the  literature  older  than   140.     I  am  not  so  sure 
as  he  is  that  there  is  no  allusion  to  the  Gospel   in 
Barnabas  or  Hermas,  where  it  is  found  (e.g.)  by  Keim, 
or  in  the  Elders  of  Papias,  where  it  is  found  (e.  g.)  by 
Harnack.      The  questions    raised  in  these  cases  are 
too  complex  and  too  delicate  to  be  quite  worth  dis- 
cussing from  the  point  of  view  of  that   legal  proof 
which  for  Schmiedel  seems  alone  to  have  any  value. 
But  Ignatius  and   the  Didachd  are  of  more  tangible 
importance.     I  am  inclined  to  think  that  justice  has 
rarely  been  done  from  this  point  of  view  to  Ignatius. 
It  is  not  so  much  a  question  of  close  coincidence  in 
expression.     There  I  should  perhaps  allow  that  Dr. 
Schmiedel    is    within    his    rights    in    denying   w'hat 
Dr.  Drummond  and  Dr.  Stanton   affirm.     The  evi- 
dence of  Ignatius  is  obscured  by  the  fact  that,  unlike 


242     VI I  I.    The  Early  History  of  the  Gospel 

Polycarp  \  he  is  not  given  to  exact  quotation.  Poly- 
carp  is  by  far  the  weaker  man  ;  it  is  natural  to  him 
to  express  his  thoughts  in  the  words  of  others.  But 
Ignatius  has  a  rugged  strength  of  mind  which  digests 
and  assimilates  all  that  comes  to  it,  and  if  it  repro- 
duces the  thoughts  of  others,  does  so  in  a  form  of  its 
own  2.  But  I  do  not  think  there  can  be  any  doubt 
that  Ignatius  has  digested  and  assimilated  to  an 
extraordinary  degree  the  teaching  that  we  associate 
with  the  name  of  St.  John.  If  any  one  questions 
this,  I  would  refer  him  to  the  excellent  monograph, 
Ignatius  von  Antiochien  als  Christ  und  Theologe,  by 
Freiherr  von  der  Goltz  {Texte  und  Untersuchungen, 
Band  xii).  It  will  be  best  to  give  the  conclusion 
to  which  this  writer  comes  in  his  own  words,  as 
I  agree  with  it  largely  but  not  quite  entirely.  He 
says  : 

'  The  question  is  whether  Ignatius  came  to  ap- 
propriate this  world  of  thought  through  reading  our 
Fourth  Gospel,  or  w^hether  he  must  be  held  to  be  an 
independent  witness  to  this  mode  of  thinking.  Up  to 
a  certain  point  the  preceding  investigation  has  already 
shown  that  the  latter  is  the  case.  Although,  for 
instance,  certain  details  might  seem  to  point  to  borrow- 
ing from  the  Fourth  Gospel,  yet  this  peculiar  religious 
Modalism,  this  mysticism,  this  combination  and  ac- 
centuation of  the  same  points,  this  special  form  of 
faith  in  Christ,  and,  in  general,  this  identical  mode  of 
thought  and  belief  could  not  be  simply  transferred  by 

^  See,  however,  the  Oxford  Society  of  Hist.  Theol.,  N.  T.  in 
Apost.  Fathers  (1905),  p.  84, 

*  Ibid.,  pp.  64,  67,  69  ;  on  the  use  of  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
pp.  81-3  (a  judicious  estimate). 


The  External  Evidence  243 

means  of  a  book  to  one  who  had  not  in  other  ways 
taken  up  the  same  ideas  and  made  them  his  own. 
There  is  also  proof  from  various  turns  given  to  the 
thought,  as  from  his  use  of  an  independent  terminology, 
that  the  author  is  in  possession  of  "Johannean"  ideas 
as  his  own  property.  So  that  in  case  we  really  came 
to  the  result  that  Ignatius  was  acquainted  with  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  we  should  have  indeed  to  refer  to  that 
acquaintance  the  portrait  that  he  draws  of  Christ  and 
some  details,  but  in  spite  of  that  we  should  have  to 
hold  fast  the  conclusion  that  in  appropriating  his 
general  conception  of  things,  Ignatius  must  have  come 
under  the  prolonged  influence  of  a  community  itself 
influenced  by  Johannean  thought'  (p.    139). 

It  will  have  been  observed  that  the  reason  for 
thinking  that  the  affinity  of  thought  between  Ignatius 
and  St.  John  is  not  to  be  explained  by  the  use  of 
a  book,  is  not  because  of  its  sHghtness  but  because 
it  is  really  too  deep  to  be  accounted  for  in  that  way. 
It  is  true  that  the  affinity  goes  very  deep.  I  had 
occasion  a  few  years  ago  to  study  rather  closely  the 
Ignatian  letters,  and  I  was  so  much  impressed  by  it 
as  even  to  doubt  whether  there  is  any  other  instance 
of  resemblance  between  a  biblical  and  patristic  book, 
that  is  really  so  close.  Allowing  for  a  certain  crudity 
of  expression  in  the  later  writer  and  remembering 
that  he  is  a  perfervid  Syrian  and  not  a  Greek,  he 
seems  to  me  to  reflect  the  Johannean  teaching  with 
extraordinary  fidelity.  This  applies  especially  to  his 
presentation  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation,  to 
his  conception  of  the  Logos,  and  of  the  relation  of 
Christ  at  once  to  the  Father  and  to  the  believer. 
In    the   writers    of   the    next   generation   to   Ignatius 

R  2 


244     VIIL    The  Early  History  of  the  Gospel 

e.  g.  in  Justin — the  conception  of  the  Logos  is  infected 
by  Greek  philosophy,  giving  to  it  more  or  less  the  sense 
of  reason,  whereas  in  Ignatius  the  leading  idea  is, 
as  we  have  seen  it  to  be  in  St.  John,  that  of  revela- 
tion. Nowhere  else  have  we  the  idea  of  the  fullness 
of  Godhead  revealed  in  Christ  grasped  and  expressed 
with  so  much  vigour.  What  difference  there  is  is 
of  the  nature  of  exaggeration.  It  is  not  wrong  to 
say  that  the  language  of  Ignatius  tends  towards 
Modalism.  But  it  is  just  because  he  has  grasped 
ideas,  for  every  one  of  which  there  are  parallels  in 
the  Fourth  Gospel,  with  so  much  intensity. 

I  can  quite  allow  that  Ignatius  has  so  absorbed 
the  teaching  that  we  call  St.  John's  as  it  were  in 
succum  et  sanguinem  that  the  relation  cannot  be 
adequately  explained  by  the  mere  perusal  of  a  book 
late  on  in  life.  There  is  something  more  in  it  than 
this.  Von  der  Goltz  would  explain  it  by  the  hypo- 
thesis that  Ignatius  had  resided  for  a  considerable 
length  of  time  in  a  *  Johannean '  community  like  the 
churches  of  the  province  of  Asia.  There  is,  however, 
no  hint  of  anything  of  the  kind  In  the  letters.  It  is, 
I  think,  Harnack  who  somewhere  remarks  that  from 
the  opening  of  the  letter  of  Ignatius  to  Polycarp 
we  should  infer  that  the  latter  was  a  stranger  to  the 
writer. 

It  would  be  more  natural  to  fall  back  on  the 
tradition  that  Ignatius  was  an  actual  disciple  of 
St.  John.  But  this  tradition  appears  first  in  the 
Martyrium  Colbertinum ;  in  other  words  there  is  no 
evidence   for   it   before  the   fourth    century.     Indeed 


The  External  Evidence  245 

Zahn  has  sketched  in  a  plausible  manner  the  process 
by  which  we  may  conceive  it  to  have  arisen  ^  Still 
there  is  ample  room  in  the  dark  spaces  of  the  lives 
both  of  Ignatius  and  of  St.  John  for  some  more  or 
less  intimate  connexion  between  them.  The  alter- 
native seems  to  me  to  be,  either  to  suppose  something 
of  this  kind,  or  else  to  think  that  Ignatius  had  really 
had  access  to  the  Johannean  writings  years  before 
the  date  of  his  journey  to  Rome,  and  that  he  had 
devoted  to  them  no  mere  cursory  reading  but  a  close 
and  careful  study  which  had  the  deepest  effect  upon 
his  mind. 

If  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  really  the  work  of 
St.  John,  the  chronology  would  leave  quite  sufficient 
room  for  this  hypothesis.  But  in  any  case  the  pheno- 
mena of  the  Ignatian  letters  seem  to  me  to  prove 
the  existence,  well  before  the  end  of  the  first  century, 
of  a  compact  body  of  teaching  like  that  which  we 
find  in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  For  even  Dr.  Schmiedel, 
I  suppose,  would  hardly  wish  us  to  invert  the  relation- 
ship, and  to  say  that  the  Evangelist  took  his  ideas 
from  Ignatius.  But  if  the  substance  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel  existed  before  the  end  of  the  first  century, 
that  is  surely  a  considerable  step  towards  the  belief 
that  the  Gospel  existed  in  writing,  and  the  other 
reasons  that  we  have  for  thinking  that  it  had  been 
written  are  so  far  confirmed. 

A  smaller  item  of  proof  tending  in  the  same 
direction  is  supplied  by  the  Didachd.  It  is  well  known 
that  the  very  ancient  Eucharistic  prayer  contained 
'  Ignatius  von  Antiochien,  p.  46  ff. 


246     VIIL    The  Early  History  of  the  Gospel 

in  that  document  has  the  remarkable  phrase  '  to  make 
perfect  in  love,' — '  Remember,  Lord,  Thy  Church  to 
deliver  it  from  all  evil  and  to  perfect  it  in  Thy  love,' 
which  it  is  natural  to  compare  with  i  John  iv.  17,  18  . 
John  xvii.  23.  The  coincidence  cannot  be  wholly 
accidental,  though  the  question  must  be  left  open 
whether  the  phrase  comes  directly  from  a  writing  or 
only  circulated  orally  ^  The  problem  is  the  same  as 
that  which  has  just  met  us  in  the  case  of  Ignatius, 
though  on  a  much  smaller  scale.  As  far  as  it  goes, 
it  helps  to  strengthen  the  conclusion  that  has  just 
been  drawn. 

Between  Ignatius  and  Irenaeus  we  have  Papias, 
Justin,  and  the  greater  Gnostics.  In  view  more  par- 
ticularly of  the  discussion  by  Schwartz,  I  think  it 
may  be  said  that  Papias  probably  knew  the  Gospel 
and  recognized  it  as  an  authority.  That  Justin  also 
used  it  I  think  we  may  take  as  at  the  present  time 
generally  admitted ;  and  from  the  extent  to  which 
he  used  it  I  do  not  think  that  any  inference  can  be 
drawn.  Professor  Bacon  complains  that  the  sugges- 
tions which  have  been  put  forward  to  account  for  the 
somewhat  sparing  use  which  he  makes  of  it  are  not 
satisfactory  ^.  Probably  they  are  not  in  the  sense  of 
carrying  conviction  that  any  one  of  them  is  right  to 
the  exclusion  of  others.  There  must  always  be  this 
difficulty  where  we  are  quite  in  the  dark,  and  where 

^  Strangely  enough,  the  Oxford  Society's  committee  do  not 
mention  this  phrase,  though  it  presents  a  stronger  case  than  any 
of  those  on  p.  31. 

"^  Hibbert  Journal,  i.  529. 


The  External  Evidence  247 

the  whole  chapter  of  accidents  is  open  before  us. 
It  is  no  doubt  a  sounder  method  to  fall  back  with 
Dr.  Drummond  simply  upon  our  ignorance  ^  But 
to  say  that  the  negative  side  of  Justin's  evidence  in 
any  sense  cancels  the  positive  seems  to  me  un- 
tenable. 

As  to  Basilides  and  Valentinus,  though  there  re- 
mains in  my  own  mind  a  slight  degree  of  probability 
that  they  really  used  the  Gospel,  I  admit  that  this 
probability  is  not  of  a  kind  that  can  be  strongly 
asserted  where  it  is  challenged.  At  the  same  time 
I  cannot  think  Schmiedel's  hypothesis  at  all  prob- 
able that  '  the  Fourth  Gospel  saw  the  light  some- 
where between  a.  d.  132  and  a.d.  140  2,  and  that 
although  it  was  not  used  by  the  founders  of  the  great 
Gnostic  schools,  it  was  at  once  adopted  by  their 
disciples.  This  is  an  instance  of  the  way  in  which 
Dr.  Schmiedel  and  his  friends,  when  they  light  upon 
a  hypothesis  that  favours  the  negative  side,  content 
themselves  with  stating  it,  as  if  it  must  at  once  carry 
conviction  ;  and  form  no  mental  picture  of  the  con- 
ditions with  a  view  to  ascertain  whether  the  hypothesis 
is  or  is  not  probable.  We  may  be  pretty  sure  that 
the  Fourth  Gospel  did  not  come  in  surreptitiously 
in  this  way,  like  a  thief  over  the  wall,  and  at  once 
obtain  recognition  without  any  examination  of  cre- 
dentials. 

I   do   not  hesitate  to   say  that  this    theory  of  the 
late  origin  of  the  Gospel  is  not  one  that  will  work, 
or  bear  to  be  consistently  carried  out.     On  the  other 
'  Character^  ^c.  157.  '  Hibbert  Journal,  ii.  610. 


248     VIII.    The  Early  History  of  the  Gospel 

hand,  if  we  assume  the  traditional  view,  all  the  evi- 
dence falls  into  line ;  we  have  an  adequate  cause  for 
the  authority  which  from  the  first  attached  to  the 
Gospel ;  and,  allowing  for  the  scantiness  and  critical 
drawbacks  of  the  materials  from  which  our  evidence 
is  drawn,  we  have  a  picture  quite  as  satisfactory  as 
we  can  expect  of  its  gradually  expanding  circulation. 

So  far,  our  course  has  been  straightforward.  The 
salient  points  stand  out  in  orderly  succession,  and 
they  all  rest  on  solid  foundations.  But  when  we 
come  to  closer  quarters,  and  try  to  reconstruct  for 
ourselves  the  circumstances  under  which  the  Gospel 
was  written,  and  which  attended  the  first  two  or  three 
decades  of  its  history,  the  case  is  otherwise.  Many 
questions  may  be  raised  that  cannot  be  categorically 
answered.  Bricks  cannot  be  made  without  straw ; 
and  positive  history  cannot  be  written  on  the  ground 
of  mere  surmises  and  possibilities.  All  I  would  con- 
tend for  is  that  no  valid  argument  can  be  brought 
from  the  facts  as  they  stand  against  the  Gospel ;  it 
is  another  matter,  and  will  require  longer  time  and 
perhaps  further  discoveries,  before  we  can  paint  on 
the  canvas  of  history  a  picture  strictly  harmonious 
and  coherent  in  all  its  parts. 


III.     Unsolved  Problems. 

I.   The  Relation  of  the  Gospel  to  the  Apocalypse. 

Of  the  questions  that  are  still  sub  judice  one  of  the 
most  difficult  is  that  of  the   relation  of  the    Gospel 


Unsolved  Problems  249 

to  the  Apocalypse.  The  Apocalypse  is  a  book  on 
which  criticism  is  very  far  from  having  said  its  last 
word.  I  should  like  to  express  myself  about  it  with 
great  reserve.  But  I  do  not  think  that  in  any  case 
an  argument  can  be  drawn  from  it  against  the  Gospel. 
I  will  quote  two  very  unprejudiced  opinions.  Harnack 
writes  as  follows : 

*  I  confess  my  adhesion  to  the  critical  heresy  which 
carries  back  the  Apocalypse  and  the  Gospel  to  a  single 
author,  always  presupposing  that  the  Apocalypse  is 
the  Christian  working-up  of  a  Jewish  apocalypse 
(I  should  be  prepared  to  say  of  several  Jewish 
apocalypses — to  me  this  seems  beyond  our  power 
to  unravel).  I  mark  off  the  Christian  portions  very 
much  as  Vischer  has  done,  and  see  in  them  the  same 
spirit  and  the  same  hand  which  has  presented  us 
with  the  Gospel  ^ 

We  remember  that  in  Harnack's  view  the  author 
is  not  the  Apostle  but  the  Presbyter. 

And  then  Bousset,  who  has  written  the  commentary 
on  the  Apocalypse  in  Meyer's  series,  though  he  does 
not  go  quite  so  far  as  Harnack,  places  the  two 
works  in  close  relation  to  each  other.  After  a  careful 
examination  of  the  language  of  the  Apocalypse  he 
sums  up  thus : 

*  It  is  certainly  right  when  this  Johannean  colouring 
of  the  language  is  set  down  to  the  account  of  the 
last  redactor  of  the  Apocalypse  (Harnack,  Spitta). 
But  here  too  it  may  be  seen  that  this  redactor  has 
transformed  the  material  before  him  more  thoroughly 
than  is  commonly  supposed.  The  linguistic  parallels 
adduced    seem   to  justify   the    supposition    that    the 

*  Chronologic^  p.  675. 


250     VIII .    The  Early  History  of  the  Gospel 

Apocalypse   also   proceeds  from    circles   which   stood 
under  the  influence  of  John  of  Asia  Minor  \' 

There  are  many  to  whom  these  opinions  will  seem 
paradoxical,  but  there  is  much  to  be  said  for  them. 
I  quote  them,  however,  only  to  show  that  the  two 
problems  must  be  worked  out  independently,  and  that 
they  need  not  necessarily  clash  with  one  another. 

2.    The  Date  of  Papias. 

The  next  question  on  which  I  will  touch  is  the 
date  of  Papias,  which  has  a  subordinate  but  rather 
important  bearing  upon  the  group  of  questions  with 
which  he  is  connected. 

I  am  by  no  means  sure  that  the  late  date  now 
commonly  assigned  to  him  is  right  (c.  145-60,  Harnack). 
It  turns  upon  a  statement  in  De  Boor's  fragment, 
supposed  to  be  made  by  Papias,  that  some  of  those  who 
were  raised  from  the  dead  by  Christ  lived  till  the  time 
of  Hadrian.  A  very  similar  statement  is  quoted  by 
Eusebius  from  the  Apology  of  Quodratus  [H.E.  iv.  3, 2), 
I  suspect  that  there  has  been  some  confusion  at  work 
here.  Experience  shows  that  nothing  is  commoner  than 
for  the  same  story  to  be  referred  to  different  persons. 
In  the  case  of  Quadratus  we  have  his  own  words 
in  black  and  white,  whereas  the  attribution  to  Papias 
is  vague  and  may  be  only  a  slip  of  memory  ^     On  the 

^  Die  Offenbarung  Johannis,  p.  208. 

^  It  is  pointed  out  to  me  by  Dr.  V.  Bartlet  that  the  sentence  in 
the  Fragment  about  the  dead  raised  to  life  is  really  a  new  statement 
not  connected  with  the  sentences  preceding  which  are  referred  to 
Papias.  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  this  is  right,  and  that  the 
authority  may  be  Quadratus. 


Unsolved  Problems  251 

other  hand  Irenaeus  expressly  calls  Papias  '  one  of  the 
ancients'  [dpy^ouo^  ot^'Vp),  a  phrase  that  I  do  not  think 
he  would  have  used  of  a  time  so  near  his  own  as 
145-60.  Besides,  when  we  look  into  the  great  passage, 
Eus.  //.  E.  iii.  39,  the  standpoint  appears  to  be  that, 
at  latest  of  the  third  generation,  or  more  strictly  where 
the  second  generation  is  passing  into  the  third,  if  we 
suppose  that  Aristion  and  the  Presbyter  John  were 
still  alive.  The  natural  date  for  the  extracts  in  this 
chapter  seems  to  me  to  be  circa  100. 

3.    The  Death  of  the  Apostle  Johfi. 

De  Boor's  Fragment  is  more  precise  in  its  assertion, 
'  Papias,  in  his  second  book,  says  that  John  the  divine 
(0  Qiokdyoi)  and  James  his  brother  were  slain  by  the 
Jews.'  *John  the  divine'  is  naturally  questioned;  it 
is  defended  by  Schwartz,  but  may  quite  well  be  due 
to  the  fragmentist.  The  main  arguments  against  the 
statement  are  the  silence  of  the  early  writers,  especially 
Eusebius,  and  the  possibility  of  confusion  between 
John  the  Baptist  and  John  the  Apostle,  or  between 
red  martyrdom  and  white.  No  doubt  this  is  one  of 
the  better  examples  of  the  argument  from  silence,  and 
no  doubt  we  must  reckon  with  the  possibility  of 
mistake.  Still  I  do  not  feel  that  the  statement 
altogether  loses  its  force.  I  said  something  about 
it  in  Lecture  III;  I  will  at  present  only  add  that, 
supposing  it  were  true,  the  language  of  Papias  about 
the  two  Johns  can  be  explained  more  satisfactorily. 


252     VIII.    The  Early  History  of  the  Gospel 

4.    The  Son  of  Zcbedee  and  the  Beloved  Disciple. 

I  cannot  disguise  from  myself  that  if  the  elder  John 
really  perished  at  an  earlier  stage  in  the  history,  the 
position  of  the  younger  becomes  much  clearer.  There 
would  then  be  no  difficulty  in  the  way  of  identifying 
him  at  once  with  the  beloved  disciple  and  with  the 
author  of  the  Gospel  and  Epistles.  We  should  indeed 
have  all  the  advantages  of  Harnack's  theory  without 
its  disadvantages.  We  should  not  be  compelled  to 
attribute  to  the  Ephesian  Church  any  fraudulent 
intention  or  practice.  We  should  only  have  to  regard 
the  younger  John  as  succeeding  in  a  manner  to  the 
place  of  the  elder,  much  (as  I  said)  in  the  way  that 
James  the  brother  of  the  Lord  succeeded  to  the  place 
of  the  elder  James. 

I  do  not  wish  to  prejudge  the  question.     But  those 

who  are  familiar  with  its  intricacies  will,  I  think,  agree 

with  me  that  it  would  be  a  real  gain  to  have  only  one 

claimant  to  the  Ephesian  tradition  \ 

^  Since  this  was  written  I  have  had  the  advantage  of  seeing  in 
manuscript  an  argument  by  Dom  John  Chapman,  presenting  in  a 
more  attractive  shape  than  I  have  ever  yet  seen  the  view  that  the 
only  John  of  Ephesus  was  the  son  of  Zebedee.  All  depends  upon 
the  truth  of  the  story  of  this  Apostle's  death.  It  is  one  of  those 
statements  that  we  can  neither  wholly  trust,  nor  wholly  distrust. 
There  is  a  real  chance  that  it  may  be  right,  and  there  is  an 
equally  real  chance  that  it  may  be  wrong ;  the  evidence,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  does  not  warrant  a  positive  assertion  either  way. 
I  should  be  much  inclined  to  think  that,  if  the  statement  is  true, 
there  was  but  one  John  at  Ephesus,  the  beloved  disciple  who  was 
also  the  Presbyter ;  and,  if  the  statement  is  false,  there  was  still  but 
one  John,  who  was  both  Presbyter  and  Apostle.  But  then  there 
comes  in  the  problem  of  the  Apocalypse,  which  may  require  two 
Johns ! 


Unsolved  Problems  253 

5.  yohn  of  Ephesus  a7id  his  Gospel. 

We  must  in  any  case  think  of  John  of  Ephesus  as 
'the  aged  disciple,' for  to  our  modern  ears  some  such 
double  name  as  that  expresses  most  adequately  the 
feeling  that  surrounded  him.  He  called  himself  by 
preference  o  7r/5co-/3i>r€po?,  but  we  have  unfortunately  no 
sufficient  rendering  for  this  in  English.  'Elder'  and 
*  Presbyter'  have  both  contracted  the  associations  of 
office,  and  of  a  rather  formal  kind  of  office  that  has  lost 
too  much  of  its  original  meaning,  for  the  natural  authority 
of  age  was  at  first  always  conveyed  in  it.  I  suppose 
that  the  Apostle  thought  of  himself  most  of  all  as  a 
memory  —  the  last  and  strongest  link  with  those 
wonderful  years.  It  was  this  especially  that  gave 
him  his  sense  at  once  of  dignity  and  of  responsibility. 
When  his  disciples  spoke  of  0  npea-^vrepo?,  I  imagine 
that  they  meant,  as  we  might  say,  '  the  Venerable '  ; 
they  looked  up  to  him  with  a  feeling  of  awe  tempered 
with  affection. 

It  was  at  Ephesus,  the  capital  of  Proconsular  Asia, 
that  he  whom  we  too  may  call  '  the  Venerable  '  held 
his  modest  court,  and  from  thence  that  he  went  on 
circuit,  organizing  and  visiting  the  little  congregations 
formed  in  the  cities  and  greater  towns  of  the  province. 
We  have  a  glimpse  of  these  activities  in  the  famous 
story  of  the  Robber  Chief.  We  are  more  concerned 
with  the  contemplative  side  of  his  life,  with  that 
inward  retrospect  which  occupied  his  mind.  I  do  not 
doubt  that  it  is  true  that  the  other  Gospels,  as  they 
came    into    circulation    among    the    churches,    were 


254     VIII .    The  Early  History  of  the  Gospel 

brought  to  him,  and  that  he  expressed  his  approval  of 
them.  The  story  makes  him  speak  with  unique 
authority,  which  has  about  it  however  nothing  arti- 
ficial, but  is  just  the  natural  deference  for  one  who 
of  all  men  living  was  in  the  best  position  to  know 
the  things  of  which  he  spoke.  His  approval  of  the 
other  Gospels  was  calm  and  objective,  but  critical. 
I  believe  that  the  precious  statements  that  Papias  has 
preserved  for  us^/bout  the  composkions  ^f_St.  Mark 
a.nd  St^  Matthew  are  really  fragments  of  his  criticism. 
I  accept  also  as  literally  true  the  story  that  it  was 
partly  because  he  felt  that  there  was  something  wanting 
in  the  older  records,  and  partly  because  of  the  urgency 
of  those  around  him,  that  the  old  man  at  last  was 
himself  impelled  to  write.  Browning's  *  Death  in  the 
Desert '  presents  him  at  a  later  stage — at  the  last  stage 
of  all — but  as  an  imaginative  reproduction  of  the 
circumstances  and  frame  of  mind  in  which  the  Gospel 
was  written,  it  is  the  best  that  I  know. 

At  Ephesus  in  Asia  the  embers  of  the  apostolic  age 
glowed  longer  than  elsewhere  ;  and  we  cannot  wonder 
that  here  the  torch  should  be  lit  which  was  to  be 
handed  on  to  later  times.  If  the  devotion  of  disciples 
had  to  do  with  the  writing  of  the  Gospel,  we  may  be 
sure  that  it  also  had  to  do  with  the  commending  and 
spreading  of  the  Gospel  when  written.  It  is  possible 
enough  that  they  were  the  first  to  give  it  the  name 
of  '  the  spiritual  Gospel.'  As  such  it  passed  from 
hand  to  hand ;  and  aj^ain  it  is  not  surprising  that 
those  who  prided  themselves  on  superior  spirituality 
and  insight,  like  the  Gnostics,  showed  a  special  fond- 


Unsolved  Problems  255 

nessfor  this  Gospel,  as  we  are  told  they  d^d^  Neither 
is  it  any  more  surprising  that  in  an  opposite  quarter, 
where  a  spirit  like  that  of  our  own  Hanoverian  bishops 
looked  with  jealousy  upon  every  outbreak  of  enthu- 
siasm, there  should  be  a  movement  of  reaction  against 
the  Gospel  which  seemed  to  encourage  such  mani- 
festations (the  Alogi).  The  catholic  Church  went 
calmly  on  its  way,  and  these  partialities  and  inequalities 
soon  found  their  level.  By  the  time  of  Irenaeus  there 
is  a  stable  equilibrium ;  no  one  of  the  four  Gospels 
is  either  before  or  after  another.  And  this  is  really 
the  lesson  taught  by  the  Muratorian  Fragment,  though 
the  writer  has  to  speak  a  little  more  apologetically — 
there  are,  it  is  true,  differences,  but  all  are  inspired 
by  the  self-same  Spirit. 

The  last  trace  in  ancient  times  of  the  preference 
which  from  its  birth  had  been  given  to  the  Fourth 
Gospel  appears,  as  we  might  expect,  in  Origen.  After 
describing  in  detail  the  different  purposes  which 
dominated  the  other  Gospels,  Origen  explains  that 
Providence  reserved  for  him  who  had  leaned  upon  the 
breast  of  Jesus  the  greater  and  more  mature  discourse 
about  Him,  for  none  of  the  others  had  set  forth  His 
deity  so  unreservedly  as  John. 

'So  then  we  make  bold  to  say  that  of  all  the 
Scriptures  the  Gospels  are  the  firstfruits,  and  the 
firstfruits  of  the  Gospels  is  that  according  to  John, 
the  meaning  whereof  none  can  apprehend  who  has  not 
leaned  upon  the  breast  of  Jesus,  or  received  at  the 
hands  of  Jesus  Mary  to  be  his  mother  too  ^' 

'  Iren.  adv.  Ilaer.  iii.  ii.  7. 
*  Comm.  in  Joan.  i.  6. 


256     VIIL    The  Early  History  of  the  Gospel 

This  is  the  kind  of  history  that  the  extant  materials 
and  tradition  sketch  for  us  of  the  origin  and  early 
fortunes  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  From  the  moment 
that  we  leave  behind  the  shade  of  obscurity  which 
does  just  linger  over  the  person  of  the  author,  every- 
thing seems  to  me  quite  consistent  and  coherent  and 
natural  and  probable.  Can  we  say  as  much  of  the 
opposition  to  the  Gospel,  especially  in  its  extremer 
form,  as  represented  by  Schmiedel  or  Jean  R^ville 
or  Loisy  ?  We  certainly  cannot  give  the  epithets  just 
used  to  the  theory  of  these  writers,  because  there  is 
really  nothing  to  apply  them  to  ;  the  Gospel  is  for 
them  a  great  ignotum,  and  nothing  more.  Is  not  this 
in  itself  a  rather  serious  objection  ?  As  an  ignotum 
the  Gospel  is  really  too  great  to  plant  down  in  the 
middle  of  the  history  of  the  second  century  without 
creating  a  disturbance  of  all  the  surrounding  conditions 
which  we  may  be  sure  would  have  lasted  for  years. 
Imagine  this  solid  mass  suddenly  thrust  into  the 
course  of  events,  as  Schmiedel  would  say,  somewhere 
about  the  year  140,  between  Basilides  and  Valentinus 
and  their  disciples,  as  it  were  under  the  very  eyes 
of  Polycarp  and  Anicetus  and  Justin  and  Tatian, 
without  making  so  much  as  a  ripple  upon  the  surface. 
Of  course  nothing  can  be  simpler  than  to  say  that 
the  author  of  the  Gospel  is  unknown  ;  but  the  moment 
we  come  to  close  quarters  with  the  statement,  and 
realize  what  it  means,  we  perceive  its  difficulty. 


Principles  of  Criticism  ^57 


Epilogue  071  th:  Prinaples  of  Criticism. 

And  now  that  we  have  come  to  the  end  of  this  brief 
sketch  of  the  history  of  the  Gospel  for  the  first 
hundred  years  or  so  of  its  existence,  I  may  perhaps 
turn  in  conclusion  to  the  other  object  which  has  been 
present  to  my  mind  throughout  this  course  of  lectures, 
and  attempt  to  collect  and  state,  also  in  the  most 
summary  form,  some  of  the  underlying  principles  of 
criticism  which  have  from  time  to  time  found  expres- 
sion in  the  lectures  and  which  I  desire  to  submit  for 
your  consideration,  more  especially  where  they  differ 
from  much  current  practice.  I  consider  them  to  be 
self-evident ;  but  their  obviousness  has  at  least  not 
prevented  them  from  being  too  often  disregarded. 
The  main  points  would,   I  think,  be  as  follows  : 

I.  In  judging  of  the  external  evidence  for  any 
ancient  writing,  it  is  always  important  to  observe  not 
only  the  details  of  the  evidence  itself  (date,  genuine- 
ness, authority,  freedom  from  ambiguity,  the  precise 
point  attested),  but  also  the  extent  of  the  area  from 
which  it  is  drawn  and  the  proportion  which  it  bears  to 
the  extant  literature  of  the  period  which  it  covers. 
The  first  step  should  be  an  attempt  to  realize  by  an 
effort  of  the  imagination  the  proportion  between  (i) 
the  whole  of  the  extant  evidence,  (2)  the  amount  of 
the  material  that  yields  this  evidence,  (3)  the  amount 
of  the  material,  once  extant  but  now  no  longer  extant, 
which  might  have  contributed  evidence  if  we  had  it. 
In  other  words,  what  we  have  to  consider  is  not  only 


258     VIII.    The  Early  History  of  the  Gospel 

the  actual,  positive  evidence  available,  but  the  distribu- 
tion of  this  evidence  and  its  relation  to  the  real  lie 
of  the  facts — no  longer  accessible  to  us  but  as  they 
may  be  imaginatively  reconstructed. 

2.  In  particular,  when  use  is  made  of  the  argument 
from  silence,  the  first  question  to  be  asked  is.  What 
is  silent  ?  It  may  well  be  that  the  literature  supposed 
to  be  silent  is  so  small  that  no  inference  of  any  value 
can  be  drawn  from  it. 

3.  In  any  further  use  of  the  argument  from  silence 
full  allowance  should  be  made  for  common  human 
infirmity  in  the  persons  who  are  silent — for  oversight, 
forgetfulness,  limited  range  of  thought.  It  is  always 
desirable  that  the  application  of  the  argument  from 
silence  should  be  checked  by  comparison  with  verifi- 
able examples  from  actual  experience,  whether  that 
experience  is  derived  from  ancient  life  or  from  modern. 

4.  The  presumption  is  that  plain  statements  of  fact 
may  be  trusted,  unless  there  is  distinct  and  solid 
reason  to  the  contrary.  Even  where  there  is  a  con- 
siderable interval  of  time  between  the  fact  and  the 
statement,  it  may  be  presumed  that  the  writer  who 
makes  the  statement  had  connecting  links  of  testimony 
to  which  he  had  access  and  we  have  not.  In  any  case 
it  is  worth  while  to  ask  ourselves  whether  it  is  not 
probable  that  such  connecting  links  existed. 

5.  In  such  plain  statements  the  presumption  further 
is  that  the  writer  meant  what  he  says,  or  appears  to 
say.  Not  until  this  apparent  sense  has  proved  wholly 
unworkable  is  it  right  to  tamper  with  his  express 
language,    whether    by    emendation    of    the    text    or 


Principles  of  Criticism  259 

putting  upon  his  words   a  sense  that  is  not  obvious 
and  natural. 

6.  The  imputation  of  conscious  deception  or  fraud 
is  to  be  strongly  deprecated,  except  with  writers  of 
ascertained  bad  character,  and  even  then  the  imputa- 
tion should  not  be  made  without  substantial  reason. 

7.  All  imputations  of  motive,  and  especially  of 
sinister  motive,  should  be  carefully  weighed,  and  it 
should  in  particular  be  considered  whether  the  sup- 
posed motive  is  one  that  was  likely  to  be  in  operation 
under  the  historical  conditions  of  the  time  and  circum- 
stances of  the  writer  affected. 

8.  It  should  never  be  forgotten  that  human  nature 
is  a  very  subtle  and  complex  thing — usually  far  more 
subtle  and  complex  than  any  picture  of  it  that  we  are 
likely  to  form  for  ourselves.  Hence  it  is  improbable 
that  the  enumeration  of  motives  by  the  critical  historian 
will  really  exhaust  the  possibilities  of  the  case.  Many 
seeming  inconsistencies,  whether  of  character  or  of 
statement,  are  really  less  than  they  seem,  and  quite 
capable  of  conjunction  in  the  same  person. 

9.  Where  a  simple  cause  suffices  to  explain  a  group, 
especially  a  large  group,  of  facts,  it  is  better  not  to 
assume  a  cause  that  is  highly  exceptional  and  compli- 
cated. This  rule  seems  to  apply  to  the  indications  of 
an  eye-witness  in  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

10.  Such  indications  do  not  in  the  least  exclude 
the  natural  effect  of  lapse  of  time  and  the  unconscious 
action  of  experience  and  reflection  on  the  mind  of 
a  writer  who  sets  down  late  in  life  a  narrative  of  events 
that  had  happened  long  before. 

s  2 


26o     VIII .    The  Early  History  of  the  Gospel 

11.  In  studying  a  narrative  of  this  kind  we  should 
bear  in  mind,  as  well  as  we  can,  the  whole  career  of 
the  writer :  we  should  divide  it  into  its  successive 
stages,  and  we  should  be  constantly  asking  ourselves 
which  stage  of  his  experience  is  reflected  in  the  shape 
that  each  portion  of  the  narrative  takes.  If  the 
conception  which  results  as  a  whole  appears  to  be 
such  as  naturally  starts  from  direct  contact  with  the 
facts,  that  will  supply  us  with  a  much  easier  explana- 
tion than  any  which  involves  the  wholesale  use  of 
fiction. 

1 2.  There  are  different  kinds  of  portraiture  ;  and  it 
does  not  at  all  follow  that  a  portrait  to  be  real  must 
be  full  of  movement  and  action.  There  are  some 
minds  that,  from  peculiarity  of  mental  habit,  although 
they  preserve  what  they  once  saw  or  heard  with  great 
distinctness  and  fidelity,  nevertheless  easily  travel 
away  from  these  recollections  of  observed  fact  and 
glide  into  a  train  of  reflection  which  is  almost  soliloquy. 
The  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  appears  to  be 
a  writer  of  this  kind. 

13.  He  himself  lays  so  much  stress  upon  ocular 
testimony  that  we  must  give  him  credit  for  such 
testimony,  even  where  it  is  not  altogether  easy  for 
us  to  follow  him. 

14.  This  applies  particularly  to  his  reports  of 
miracle.  But  in  judging  of  these  reports,  we  must 
before  all  things  bear  in  mind  that  the  personal  dis- 
ciples of  Jesus  and  the  whole  first  generation  of 
Christians  certainly  believed  that  they  were  living 
in  the  midst  of  miracle,  and  certainly  held  that  belief 


Principles  of  Criticism  261 

to   be   an    important  constituent    in    their  conception 
of  Christ. 

15.  If  we  would  form  an  adequate  idea  of  what 
we  call  '  the  supernatural '  in  the  dealings  of  God 
with  men,  we  must  not  begin  by  ruling  out  all  that 
transcends  our  common  experience.  We  must  keep 
it  in  our  minds  even  where  we  feel  that  there  are 
features  of  it  that  we  do  but  imperfectly  understand. 
More  light  may  be  given  to  us  by  degrees. 

16.  All  our  Gospels  together  present  us  with  a  view 
of  the  life  and  words  of  Christ  to  which,  if  we  did 
but  know  it,  there  would  be  much  to  be  added.  The 
first  Christians  were  acquainted  with  many  particulars 
under  both  heads  which  to  us  are  entirely  lost. 
These  particulars  contributed  in  an  important  degree 
to  the  total  impression  which  they  formed  of  the 
Person  of  Christ. 

17.  The  conception  was  naturally  fullest  and  most 
adequate  in  the  Mother  Church,  i.e.  in  the  Church 
in  which  the  immediate  followers  of  Christ  were  for 
the  longest  time  collected.  It  was  here,  and  nowhere 
else,  that  that  conception  of  His  Person  was  formed 
which  dominated  all  parts  of  the  Church,  and  which 
carried  with  it  certain  corollaries  as  to  the  nature 
of  God  and  his  dealings  with  men  that  became  a  per- 
manent body  of  belief. 

18.  St.  Paul  no  doubt  developed  certain  portions 
and  aspects  of  this  body  of  belief,  but  it  is  quite 
impossible  and  contrary  to  the  evidence  that  he  can 
have  invented  its  main  propositions. 

19.  We   may  be   sure  that  St.  John  did  not  draw 


262     VI  11.    The  Early  History  of  the  Gospel 

directly  from  St.  Paul,  but,  firstly,  from  his  own 
recollections,  and  in  the  second  place,  from  the  store 
of  common  memories  and  common  doctrine  that  was 
the  possession  of  all  Christians  and  especially  of  those 
who  had  been  nearest  to  the  Master. 

20.  If  we  attempt  a  reconstruction  of  the  main  lines 
of  the  progress  of  the  Church  in  the  early  and  in 
subsequent  centuries,  such  reconstruction  ought  to  be 
worthy  of  its  subject.  In  other  words,  it  ought  to 
be  one  in  which  we  can  really  see  the  finger  of  God. 

21.  The  workings  of  Divine  Providence,  as  we  have 
experience  of  them,  do  not  indeed  always  correspond 
to  what  we  should  antecedently  expect.  They  are 
such  as  belong  to  a  world,  not  of  perfect,  but  of 
imperfect  beings.  The  Divine  purpose,  as  we  see  it, 
does  not  take  effect  at  once,  but  by  slow  and  gradually 
expanding  degrees. 

22.  In  a  world  so  mixed  and  chequered  progress 
also  has  been  mixed  and  chequered  ;  it  has  not  been 
exactly  what  we,  with  our  limited  faculties,  could  at 
once  recognize  as  ideal.  It  has  been  progress  by 
tentative  experiment,  by  gradual  formulation,  by 
description,  at  first  rough  and  approximate,  but 
improved  little  by  little  as  time  went  on.  Any 
reconstruction  of  Christian  history  which  agrees  with 
these  broad  conditions  is  legitimate ;  I  mean,  any 
reconstruction  which  recognizes  the  tentative,  experi- 
mental, imperfect  but  gradually  improved  formulation 
of  Christian  belief.  It  is  incumbent  upon  us,  in  our 
own  day,  to  take  our  part  in  the  attempt  to  formu- 
late   our   conceptions  of  truth,  whether  historical  or 


Principles  of  Criticism  263 

doctrinal,  with  all  the  accuracy  in  our  power  ;  and  we 
may  be  quite  sure  that  future  generations  will  improve 
upon  anything  that  we  leave  behind  us. 

23.  Any  method  of  reconstructing  history  on  these 
hnes  is,  as  I  have  stated,  legitimate  and  worthy  of 
a  Christian  who  is  lo)  al  to  his  faith.  But  a  view  of 
history  that  cannot  be  expressed  in  terms  fit  to  de- 
scribe the  operation  of  Divine  Providence ;  that  sees 
in  it  nothing  but  huge  blunders  and  gross  deteriora- 
tions ;  that  regards  the  Church  of  Christ  as  built  on 
fundamental  untruth,  which  only  becomes  worse  and 
not  better  as  the  centuries  advance ;  such  a  view 
seems  to  me  to  be  not  loyal  and  not  really  Christian. 


INDEX 


Abbot,  Ezra,  12  f.,  15. 

Abbott,  Edwin  A.,  xi. 

Alogi,  65  f.,  238,  255. 

Antioch,  199. 

Apocalypse,  248-50. 

Apocryphal  Acts,  1 1 2. 

Apocryphal  Gospels,  112  f. 

Apologetics,  X,  3-5,  38. 

Apostle,  the  title,  105  f. 

Apostolicity,  41. 

Aristion,  241  ;  see  also  Presbyters 

of  Papias. 
Arnold,  Matthew,  225. 
Athanasius,  Vita  Antonii,  57  ff.,  183. 
Augustine,  St.,  178. 

Bacon,  Benjamin  W.,  19,  24  f.,  35, 

57,  75- 
Baldensperger,  Wilhelm,  84. 
Barnabas,  Epistle  of,  38  f.,  241. 
Bartlet,  Vernon,  250. 
Basilides,  247,  256. 
Batiffol,  Mgr.  Pierre,  12. 
Baur,  Ferdinand  Christian,  43. 
'  behold,'  meaning  of,  76  f. 
'believe,'  161  f. 
Bethsaida,  114. 
Beyschlag,  Willibald,  10  f. 
Bousset,  Wilhelm,  17,  249  f. 
Box,  George  H.,  153. 
Briggs,  Charles  Augustus,  21  flf. 
Burkitt,  F.  Crawford,  183  f. 
Butler,  Dom  Cuthbert,  57,  183. 

Caius,  66,  69. 
Calmes,  P^re  Th.,  12. 


Canonicity,  39. 
Catholicity,  41. 
Ceremonies,  119  ff. 
Chapman,  Dom  John,  253. 
Cheyne,  Thomas  Kelly,  x  f. 
Church,  the  Mother,  vii,  228-33,261. 
Chwolson,  Daniel,  121,  152  f. 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  66,  67  ff., 
72  f.,  105,  238  ff. ;  see  Presbyters. 
Continuity,  5,  234  f. 
Conybeare,  Frederick  C,  29,  55. 
Cosmos,  197. 
Criticism,  American,  46  ff. 

—  English,  44  ff. 

—  French,  27  f.,  31. 

—  German,  ix,  27  f.,  48  ff. 

—  Principles  of,  42-67,  142, 257-63. 

De   Boor's   Fragment,  103  f,  107, 

250  ff. 
Delff,  Hugo,  17  f.,  21,  90,  99,  108. 
Demoniacal  Possession,  130,  133  f. 
Development,  alleged  want  of,  155- 

65,  209. 
Didachi^  1 99,  241,  245  f. 
Dill,  Samuel,  35  f. 
Dobschiitz,  Ernst  von,  15  f.,  18  f., 

115. 
Dods,  Marcus,  il. 
Drummond,  James,  3,  15,  32  ff.,  41, 

67,  81,  iioff.,  115,  141,  166,  192, 

197,  241,  247. 
Dualism,  196. 

Ebionism,  29,  226,  230. 
fKeu'Of,  77  ff. 


266 


Index 


Encyclopaedia  Biblica,  i  f.,  45. 
Eusebius,  65,  67  fif.,  238  f.,  250  f. 
Extensions,  Principle  of,  178. 

Feasts,  the  Jewish,  117  f.,  119  ff.; 

see  Passover. 
Fisher,  George  P.,  14. 
Fourth      Gospel,      Appendix      to 

(ch.  xxi),  63  f.,  80  f. 

—  as  a  '  spiritual  Gospel,'  68,  70  ff., 
96. 

—  Christology  of,  205-35. 

—  Criticism  of,  1-3,  5-8,  15,  25,  32, 
60  ff ,  65  f.,  67  ff. 

—  Discourses  in,  165-9. 

—  External  Evidence  for,  238-48. 

—  Internal  Evidence,  Summary  of, 
238  f. 

—  Geographical  Details  in,  113  f. 

—  Monotony  of,  206. 

—  not  a  biography,  70  f.,  205-7. 

—  Object  of,  68  f.,  71  f.,  205  f. 

—  Relation  to  Synoptics,  67  ff., 
71  f.,  117  f.,  143-55)  166,216-25. 

—  Author  of,  67  ff.,  70  ff.,  79  f.,  82- 
108,  128,  167  ff.,  188  f.,  206,  244  f., 
260 ;  see  St.  John,  Apostle  and 
Presbyter. 

Furrer,  Konrad,  Il3f. 

Galatians,  Epistle  to  the,  230. 
Georgius  Monachus  (Hamartolus), 

103. 
Godet,  Fr^d^ric,  11. 
Goltz,  Freiherr  E.  von  der,  242-4. 
Grill,  Julius,  190-2,  194-7,  200  f. 
Gwatkin,  Henry  M.,  58  f. 

Harnack,  Adolf,  18  ff.,  42  ff.,  60  ff., 
76,  106,  197,  200,  223,  241,  249, 
250,  252. 

Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible, 
45-9- 


Hebrews,  Epistle  to  the,  207-16. 
Heracleon,  24,  238,  240. 
Hermas,  241. 
Holtzmann,  Heinrich  Julius,  41,  57, 

75.  "5,  194,  224. 
Holtzmann,  Oscar,  25  f. 

Ignatius    of   Antioch,   51  ff.,    199, 

241-5. 
Irenaeus,  60  ff.,  65  f ,  "Ji,  105,  238  ff., 

25i>  255. 

Jacquier,  Abb^  E.,  12. 
Jerusalem,  Destruction  of,  116, 123  f. 
Jewish  Ideas,  15,  128-36. 
John,  Apocryphal  Acts  of,  108. 

—  First  Epistle  of,  57,  74  ff. 

—  School  of  St.,  73,  81  f.,  253  f. ; 
see  Presbyters  of  Papias,  Presby- 
ters of  Clement. 

John  the  Apostle,  16  ff.,  60  ff.,  97- 
108,  248-56 ;  see  also  Fourth 
Gospel,  Author  of. 

—  Death  of,  103  ff.,  107  f.,  251  f. 
John  the  Presbyter,  16  ff.,  19  f,  60  ff., 

97-108,  248-56 ;  see  also  Fourth 

Gospel,  Author  of. 
Jiilicher,  Adolf,  i,  31  f.,  75. 
Justin  Martyr,  33,  139,  166,  246  f., 

256. 

Keim,  Theodor,  241. 
KreyenbiJhl,  Johannes,  xi. 

Last  Discourse,  90,  94  ff. 

Last  Supper,  88  f.,  94,  150-5. 

Lazarus,  Story  of,  87  f.,  170-2. 

Light  and  Life,  igof.,  201. 

Lightfoot,  Joseph  B.,  12,  51  ff. 

Local  Colour,  129-36. 

Logos,   Doctrine   of  the,   185-204, 

211  ff. 
Loisy,  Abb^  Alfred,  2,  28,  31,  41, 

200-4,  205,  223  f.,  256. 


Index 


267 


Lucius,  Ernst,  54  f. 
Luthardt,  Christoph  K.,  ii. 

Malchus,  90. 

Matthew,  Apocryphal    Gospel    of, 

112  f. 
McGiflfert,  A.  Cushman,  19. 
Memra,  187. 

Messiah,  the  title,  208,  221  f. 
Messianic  Expectation,  1 17,  136-40, 

I58f. 
Milligan,  William,  11. 
Ministry,  Scene  of  the,  144-8. 

—  Duration  of,  148  f. 
Miracle,  169-84. 

Moberly,  Robert  Campbell,  215. 
Moffatt,  James,  19. 
Moulton,  William  F.,  1 1. 
Muratorian  Fragment,  66,  105,  255. 

Origen,  66,  238,  255. 

Papias,  60,  64,  72,,  246,  250  ff.,  254  ; 

see  De  Boor's  Fragment. 
Paraclete,  196  f.,  219  f. 
Passover,  85,  117,  iigf.,  15 1-5;  see 

Feasts. 
Paul,  St.,  168,  174  f.,  188,  261. 

—  St., and  St.  John,  Relation  of,  viii, 
168,  208-16,  226-33. 

Peter,  St.,  and  St.  John,  91  f.,  100, 

102,  107. 
Peter,  Second  Epistle  of,  43. 
Petronius,  Satiricon,  35  f. 
Pfleiderer,  Otto,  26. 
Pharisees  ;  see  Sects  and  Parties. 
Philip  the  Evangelist,  64. 
Philo,  55,  185-200. 

—  De  Vita  Cotitemplativa,  54  ff. 
Pilgrimages,  117  f. 

Polycarp,  60,  62,  242,  256. 
Polycrates,  62,  99  f.,  102  f.,  105. 
Pothinus,  61  f. 


Pragmatism,  109  K. 
Presbyter,  the  title,  253. 
Presbyters  of  Clement,  67,  72  f. 
—  of  Fapias,  60  f.,  63  f.,  241. 
Purification,  84  f.,  i2of. 

Quadratus,  250. 

Rabbinical  Schools,  132. 
Ramsay,  William  M.,  112. 
R^ville,  Jean,  2,  28,  31,  200,  256. 
Ritschlianism,  47. 
Roman  Government,  126  ff. 

Sadducees  ;  see  Sects  and  Parties. 
Salmon,  George,  66. 
Samaria,  Woman  of,  85. 
Sanhedrin,  90  f.,  100  f.,  116,  124  AT. 
Schmiedel,  Paul  W.,  2,  26  f.,  37  ff., 

57,75,  239  flf.,  247,256. 
Schiirer,  Emil,  18,  28,  55  f. 
Schwartz,  Eduard,  32,  66,  246. 
Sects  and  Parties,  123  ff. 
Silence,  Argument  from,  33  ff.,  39, 

171  f.,  251. 
Sodtn,     Freiherr     Hermann    von, 

viii  f.,  129  f. 
Soltau,  WMlhelm,  21. 
Son  of  God,  the  title,  208-26,  231. 
Spirit,  the  Holy,  214  f. 
'spiritual,'  meaning  of,  71  f. 
Stanton,  Vincent  H.,  3,  37  ff.,  241. 
Stoics,  199. 
Style,  Argument  from  Identity  of, 

56f.,  74f-,  81. 
Supernatural,  the,  169-84,  260  f. 
Synoptic    Gospels,     Criticism     of, 

151  ff.,    170-2,    217  f.,    261  ;    see 

Fourth     Gospel,      Relation      to 

Synoptics. 

Tatian,  66,  238  ff. 
Temple,  the,  113,  122  f. 


268 


Index 


Temple,  Cleansing  of,  149  f, 

—  Golden  Gate  of,  113. 

—  Solomon's  Porch,  123,  164  f. 

—  Treasury,  123. 
Tertullian,  105,  238  fif. 

Textual   History,  Argument   from, 

55  f. 
'that  year,'  115. 

Thecla,  Acts  of  Paul  and,  43,  112. 
Theophilus  of  Antioch,  34,  238. 
Tiberias,  Sea  of,  114. 
Tradition,  4,  44. 
Trinity,    Doctrine    of   the,    215  f, 

218  f.,  231. 


\'alentinus,  247,  256. 

Ward,  Miss  Janet,  i. 
Watkins,  Henry  W.,  xi. 
Weingarten,  Hermann,  57. 
Weiss,  Bernhard,  gf.,  30. 
Wellhausen,  Julius,  ix. 
Wendland,  Paul,  199. 
Wendt,  Hans  Hinrich,  21  fif.,  220  f. 
Wernle,  Paul,  27,  31,  75,  227-35. 
Westcott,  Brooke  Foss,  13,  93. 
Wrede,  William,  ix,  75,  109  f. 

Zahn,  Theodor,  8  f.,  245. 


B5 


University  of  California   ^^^„,„ 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACIUTY 

405  Hllgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


iDFC 


;ek  loan 


Series  9482 


3  1205  01764  157(5 


S 


'\:-^-')  Ml- 


